Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Sexual selection

Letter at The Guardian: Darwin got sexual selection wrong

Spread the love

The Guardian doesn’t seem to be letting up: Having already published a critique of Darwinism, they continue question Darwin. Here’s a letter they published, critiquing his sexual selection theory:

The question isn’t whether or not we need a new theory of evolution (The long read, 28 June); it’s why it has taken so long to bring the old one into the 21st century. Anchor bias, the difficulty of dislodging the first thing we learn about a topic, makes it challenging for biologists to accept and evaluate experimental data that doesn’t play by Darwin’s rules.

Natural selection had many fathers, including Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus. But sexual selection is exclusively Darwin’s, and is the theory most in need of a second look. The failure to update the theory of sexual selection by incorporating recent genetic breakthroughs and viewing the process through a female lens has left us with a seriously flawed theory of human evolution.

Heather Remoff, “How Charles Darwin got sexual selection wrong” at The Guardian (July 8, 2022)

Heather Remoff is the author of What’s Sex Got To Do With It? (2022).

She seems like another witness to the fact that one can question Darwin today without getting cancelled.

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is, of course, not pleased: In the end, Remoff is tilting at two windmills that have already fallen. Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.”

The ground is shifting under his feet.

80 Replies to “Letter at The Guardian: Darwin got sexual selection wrong

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    similar mainstream article published in 2007

    Joan Roughgarden “Challenging Darwin’s theory of sexual selection”

    May a biologist in these polarized times dare suggest that Darwin is a bit wrong about anything? Even worse, does a biologist risk insult, ridicule, anger, and intimidation to suggest that Darwin is incorrect on a big issue? We have a test case before us. Darwin appears completely mistaken in his theory of sex roles, a subject called the ‘theory of sexual selection.’1

    full article:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028107?seq=1

    PS: of course, Darwin got it all wrong, not only the theory of sexual selection … Darwin misinterpreted everything …

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection and Roughgarden and Remoff are right?

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky, Darwin was wrong about everything. Not a single assumption has proven true. There has never been anything witnessed to prove evolution true.

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    There has never been anything witnessed to prove evolution true

    Depends on what you mean by the word “evolution.”

    I watch course after course on science and they dutifully refer to Darwin’s ideas. They don’t have to but they do. Why?

    The answer is that natural selection is so obvious that they then beg the question and assume it for all life changes. If it is so obvious to these scientists why isn’t it obvious to ID people?

    The answer is that ID accepts natural selection as a process. So why the continuing criticism of Darwin for something ID accepts?

    We all know why but while being accurate why not up front admit that Darwin’s idea of natural selection most definitely works. But then restrict it to where it works. That is genetics and thus, minor changes in species.

    Give credit where credit is due. Maybe Darwin would have agreed if he knew now what is known about variation, heritability, ecologies and the logical as well as the physical limits of change.

    Maybe if ID became the complete arbiter of truth instead of religion, the truth might seep through to the establishment. Right now, ID is creationism to the world not truth. Maybe changing that image should be the focus of ID.

    But it is not if one reads the comments here.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky asks, “How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?”

    BobRyan: “Seversky, Darwin was wrong about everything.”

    And indeed Darwin was. Every major prediction, and/or falsification criteria, that Charles Darwin himself laid out for his theory has now been shown to be false.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – list
    Excerpt:

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a unique group/kind in the fossil record (disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/

    But since Seversky emphasized the word “know” when he asked, “How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?”, it is important to realize that if the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwin’s theory were actually true then it would be impossible for anyone to know anything. This is because of the plain a simple fact that, if Darwinian materialism were actually true, there simply could be no conscious minds that could “know” anything.

    As Michael Egnor succinctly put the insurmountable problem of “knowing” for Darwinian materialists,

    “Your computer doesn’t know a binary string from a ham sandwich. Your math book doesn’t know algebra. Your Rolodex doesn’t know your cousin’s address. Your watch doesn’t know what time it is. Your car doesn’t know where you’re driving. Your television doesn’t know who won the football game last night. Your cell phone doesn’t know what you said to your girlfriend this morning. ¶ People know things. Devices like computers and books and Rolodexes and watches and cars and televisions and cell phones don’t know anything. They don’t have minds. They are artifacts — paper and plastic and silicon things designed and manufactured by people — and they provide people with the means to leverage their human knowledge. ¶ Computers (and books and watches and the like) are the means by which people leverage and express knowledge. Computers store and process representations of knowledge. But computers have no knowledge themselves.”
    – Michael Egnor – “YOUR COMPUTER DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING” (JANUARY 23, 2015). .

    Charles Darwin himself intimated that the existence of conscious minds might be a insurmountable problem for his materialistic theory when he stated, “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”

    And indeed, ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    The glaring problem for any reductive materialistic explanation that seeks to explain the existence of “our conscious selves’ is that consciousness is profoundly immaterial in its foundational nature.

    Dr. Michael Egnor, who is a neurosurgeon, lists six properties of the immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with Darwinian materialism,

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    The most famous of these defining properties of the immaterial mind that refuses to be reduced to materialistic explanations is ‘qualia’.

    Qualia
    Excerpt: Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.
    – per wikipedia

    “qualia’ is also defined as ‘individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.’

    David Chalmers is fairly well known for clearly explaining the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, i.e. qualia, in an easy to understand manner for the general public.

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    Materialists simply do not have any realistic clue how anything material could ever possibly generate the inner subjective consciousness experience of qualia. (Which is to say, that materialists have no clue how anything material could ever possibly truly “know” anything)

    As Professor of Psychology David Barash honestly admitted in the following article, (an article which happens to be entitled “the hardest problem in science?”), “But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.”

    The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    – David Barash – Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington.
    https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845

    In fact, the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, (i.e. qualia, “knowing”), is such a hard problem for Darwinian materialists to try to explain that many prominent Darwinists have been reduced to arguing that our conscious experience is merely a (neuronal) illusion.

    The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018
    Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,,
    Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2.....s-deniers/

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    Sam Harris (a scientific materialist): “The self is an illusion.”
    – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1)
    https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    – Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our subjective conscious experience, must be a neuronal illusion, (an illusion that is generated by the material brain), is simply a blatantly self-refuting claim that Darwinian materialists are forced to make. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”

    The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
    Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
    – David Bentley Hart
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

    In short, if consciousness is not held to be primary in our model for reality, but is instead held to be a ‘derivative illusion’, then that model will inevitably collapse into self-refuting nonsense.

    Consciousness simply must be held to be primary in any model of reality that we may put forth.

    As Eugene Wigner succinctly stated, “our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied.”

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    And Wigner is not alone. Both Planck and Schroedinger are both also on record arguing that consciousness must be fundamental to reality.

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    – Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    – Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.

    Moreover, we don’t have to rely solely on the fact that the denial of the primacy of consciousness is a blatantly self-refuting position for Darwinian materialists to be in. We can now also appeal to many recent lines of empirical evidence from quantum mechanics that all converge, and indicate that consciousness must precede material reality.

    Here are eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that all converge to the same point and indicate that consciousness must precede material reality

    1. Double Slit experiment,
    2. Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries,
    3. as well as the recent confirmation of the Wigner’s friend thought experiment,
    4. Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, (Quantum Eraser, etc..)
    5. Leggett’s Inequalities,
    6. Quantum Zeno effect,
    7. Quantum Information theory and the recent experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment,
    8. and the recent closing of the Free Will loophole by Zeilinger and company.

    Putting all these lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff)
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff), then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even ‘central’, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Thus in conclusion, Seversky asked “How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?”

    Well we know that Darwin was wrong about sexual selection, and about everything else, since, (besides Darwinism being falsified time and time again by empirical evidence), it would be impossible for anyone to know anything since there simply would be no conscious minds to know anything.

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  7. 7
    Nonlin.org says:

    Jerry @4

    ID people that accept “natural selection”, if any such, are of course wrong.

    Indeed, “ns” is Darwin’s contribution to “evolution” – not just a concept that is not at all obvious – but also based on “artificial selection” aka breeding that we know for a fact it is impotent in changing one “species” into another. Furthermore, said “ns” is simply and easily disproven: https://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
    End of story.

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    ID people that accept “natural selection”, if any such, are of course wrong.

    I doubt if any of the highly published authors on ID reject natural selection.

    They believe in micro evolution or genetics. What is operating there? It is natural selection.

    I accept natural selection because it’s obvious. I also recognize that it’s very limited in what it can do. So why not accept it for what it can do and reject it for what it cannot do.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    BobRyan/3

    Seversky, Darwin was wrong about everything. Not a single assumption has proven true. There has never been anything witnessed to prove evolution true.

    Darwin was a fallible human being like the rest of us, including Remoff and Roughgarden. He was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others. which will also be true of Remoff and Roughgarden. Just because the latter are critics of Darwin doesn’t necessarily mean they are right.

  10. 10
    Dick says:

    Jerry@8:
    ” I accept natural selection because it’s obvious. I also recognize that it’s very limited in what it can do. So why not accept it for what it can do and reject it for what it cannot do.”
    I don’t know of any prominent ID theorist who doesn’t do this.

  11. 11
    Dick says:

    Jerry @8:

    “I accept natural selection because it’s obvious. I also recognize that it’s very limited in what it can do. So why not accept it for what it can do and reject it for what it cannot do.”

    I don’t know of any prominent ID theorist who doesn’t do that.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/5

    But since Seversky emphasized the word “know” when he asked, “How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?”, it is important to realize that if the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwin’s theory were actually true then it would be impossible for anyone to know anything. This is because of the plain a simple fact that, if Darwinian materialism were actually true, there simply could be no conscious minds that could “know” anything.

    Non sequitur.

    Neither Darwin’s original theory nor the current theory of evolution necessarily preclude the possibility of consciousness arising through evolutionary processes. Neither does modern materialism/physicalism necessarily preclude consciousness arising through naturalistic processes.

    The hard problem of consciousness is hard because we don’t yet have a naturalistic account of the origins of consciousness. But that of itself doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    What we can say is that, when the physical brain is disabled or destroyed, the associated conscious mind disappears, apparently for good. That in itself is a strong evidence for the physical basis of consciousness.

    Also, positing an Intelligent Designer or God does not explain the nature and origins of consciousness, not until you can tell us a lot more about the natures of such beings than you can now.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    I don’t know of any prominent ID theorist who doesn’t do that.

    That’s what I said.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 9, “He (Darwin) was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others.”

    LOL,

    Darwinian Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a hard science,

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
    Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5]
    – per wikipedia

    Again, Darwinian Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a hard science,

    Imre Lakatos, a leading philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that, “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”,

    Does Evolution have a Hard Core ?
    Excerpt: “ people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with but this is just my supposition Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun mind-game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off…
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    As well, Karl Popper himself stated, “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

    “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
    – Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)

    Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010
    Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....evolution/

    Besides Horgan, Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper once again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.

    Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – 5:54 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352

    In his autobiography, Karl Popper said he had come to the conclusion that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”8 To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment “is almost tautological,” he wrote. “Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival. There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.”
    Further controversy ensued, for Popper—apparently under pressure in England—partially recanted in 1978. Later, in 1988, I had a chance to interview Popper myself, when he spent a week at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I immediately brought up the issue of natural selection. He told me that his opinion had not changed. He also said he thought that natural selection had in fact been falsified “by Darwin’s own theory.” Distortions introduced by sexual selection sometimes meant that offspring were not better adapted than their parents, he said.
    When I mentioned that Darwinism had evidently benefited from the idea of Progress, widely accepted in the mid-nineteenth century but widely rejected in the late twentieth, Popper said that “I have been one of the people who have destroyed it.” He said he had “preached” along those lines in his book The Poverty of Historicisms.
    Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2016) (pp. 14–15)

    Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian evolution, Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted that his theory didn’t qualify as a ‘true science’ when he stated, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” and further conceded that “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.”

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

    Thus, since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a hard science in the first place, Seversky could have just as easily stated, (instead of Darwin), that “(Astrology) was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others.”

    🙂

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/6

    Moreover, we don’t have to rely solely on the fact that the denial of the primacy of consciousness is a blatantly self-refuting position for Darwinian materialists to be in. We can now also appeal to many recent lines of empirical evidence from quantum mechanics that all converge, and indicate that consciousness must precede material reality.

    It is very easy to deny the primacy of consciousness.

    To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If there is nothing to be conscious of then how can we know we are conscious? If we are rendered unconscious by an injury or just fall asleep we are not conscious of anything for that period. We only become aware of objective reality again when conscious awareness resumes when we wake up. And it appears that reality continues uninterrupted even though we were not aware of it for a period.

    Also, let’s assume there was some sort of primal consciousness that preceded the existence of material reality, what was that conscious of given that there was no material, objective reality at that point? You could argue that it was something like our dreams or hallucinations, but those are apparently based on information stored in our memories. The primal consciousness could not have such information stored in its memory because information has to be about something and at that time there was no material reality for there to be any information about.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev: “It is very easy to deny the primacy of consciousness.”

    LOL, trying saying that when you are unconscious!

    🙂

  17. 17
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 15,

    Was your computer designed and built by nobody? The human body is much more complex.

  18. 18
    Nonlin.org says:

    Jerry @8

    “They believe in micro evolution or genetics. What is operating there? It is natural selection.”

    They are wrong. And with that, they not only keep the darwinist zombie alive but they also destroy the ID credibility.

    Of course there’s no such thing as “micro evolution”. Adaptation is what really happens. It is a design feature and not at all “evolution” of any kind.

    Genetics on the other hand is a real science unlike “evolution” that is just a pipe dream. These two do not belong together and in fact genetics invaliditates “evolution”.

    Furthermore, contrary to the Hollywood “science”, genetics does not and will never transform one organism into another either. There will never be any “evolution”. Nor a genetically modified superhero. Nor will there ever be a chimera organism. Nor will there ever be a real Jurassic Park (reverse extinction). Mark my words.

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/14

    Thus, since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a hard science in the first place, Seversky could have just as easily stated, (instead of Darwin), that “(Astrology) was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others.”

    Since you insist on quoting Marks, a computer scientist and engineer, and Popper and Lakatos, philosophers of science, none of whom is an evolutionary biologist and certainly not the last word on the status of evolutionary biology as a science, I will just quote part of the following article by someone who is an evolutionary biologist:

    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

    by Laurence Moran

    When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes… how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

    In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”–part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science–that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”
    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

    Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.

    – Stephen J. Gould, ” Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Discover, May 1981

    […]

    Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be “proven” and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999…9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won’t do in the real world. A “fact,” as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

    The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ….
    So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

    – H. J. Muller, “One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough” School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

    In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 12, “The hard problem of consciousness is hard because we don’t yet have a naturalistic account of the origins of consciousness. But that of itself doesn’t mean there isn’t one.”

    Promissory materialism?

    “promissory materialism is of no avail here — the inevitable materialist segue to “It may make no sense now, but give scientists time…” The immaterial nature of the intellect and will is not demonstrated by experiment, but by logic. It simply makes no sense to say that intellect and will are material, unless one accepts infinite regress as a valid hypothesis. (Given the materialist proclivity to deny the relevance of all philosophy, which would include logic, infinite regress may well become the materialists’ new tactic.)”
    – Michael Egnor
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/free_will_is_re/

    Moreover, Seversky appealed once again to “What we can say is that, when the physical brain is disabled or destroyed, the associated conscious mind disappears, apparently for good. That in itself is a strong evidence for the physical basis of consciousness.”

    And what Seversky repeatedly, and purposely, forgets when he appeals to his ‘damaged brain hypothesis’, is that we have millions of Near Death Experience reports of people who testify, adamantly, that they experienced their consciousness apart from their material body/brain. Which is millions of more times than Darwinists have ever shown the origin of any molecular machine by Darwinian processes.

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    In short, we have far more evidence for the reality of life after death, (millions of cases), than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can create even a single functional protein, (which is zero examples)

    Supplemental note:

    Near death, explained? – Mario Beauregard – Apr 21, 2012
    Excerpt: The scientific NDE (Near Death Experience) studies performed over the past decades indicate that heightened mental functions can be experienced independently of the body at a time when brain activity is greatly impaired or seemingly absent (such as during cardiac arrest). Some of these studies demonstrate that blind people can have veridical perceptions during OBEs associated with an NDE. Other investigations show that NDEs often result in deep psychological and spiritual changes.
    These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies.
    NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality.
    http://www.salon.com/2012/04/2.....socialflow

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev at 19, “Since you insist on quoting Marks, a computer scientist and engineer, and Popper and Lakatos, philosophers of science,,,, I will quote,, someone who is an evolutionary biologist”,

    Well, not to nitpick Seversky, but I did also quote Charles Darwin himself honestly admitting that his theory failed to qualify as a ‘true science’

    But anyways, one question for you Seversky, out of all those people, which one’s livelihood is directly dependent on the erroneous belief that Darwinism is true? I’ll even give you a clue, it ain’t Marks, Popper, or Lakatos.

    🙂

  22. 22
    Silver Asiatic says:

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.

    Meanwhile, natural selection is pushing against genes associated with high educational attainment, high earnings, a low risk of ADHD or major depressive disorder, and a low risk of coronary artery disease.

    Lead researcher Prof David Hugh-Jones, from UEA’s School of Economics, said: “Darwin’s theory of evolution stated that all species develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

    “We wanted to find out more about which characteristics are selected for and against in contemporary humans, living in the UK.”

    Wesley Smith comments:

    What an odd approach. If poorer people with lesser educations are having more children than educated people, that is not evolution acting on the human population. It is because people are making choices that impact demographics. Moreover, whether one has a lesser or greater education is not usually genetically, but socially, determined. And if some of those decisions do exert an influence on our future genomes, it will not be because of natural selection but human agency.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/human-evolution-is-a-misnomer/

  23. 23
    BobRyan says:

    Most people in science who blindly follow Darwin are not biologists of any kind. Darwin was not a biologist. If biologist is all that matters, most Darwinists fail to meet that criteria, including Darwin.

  24. 24
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Sexual selection? Selection starts only if sex(organ+function+genes) already exists ,right? Sex has a function that can’t evolve bit by bit .It’s 100 % functional from the start or next gen won’t exist. 😆

  25. 25
    Alan Fox says:

    Sexual selection? Selection starts only if sex(organ+function+genes) already exists ,right? Sex has a function that can’t evolve bit by bit .It’s 100 % functional from the start or next gen won’t exist.

    People elsewhere have already considered “who did the first sexual organism mate with?”.

    The basic problem with this ‘how did the sexes diverge?’ question is that it presumes a multicellular asexual diploid, which then threw up gendered forms and meiosis, maybe both at once, with attendant head-scratching over simultaneity. But there is no evidence such an organism ever existed. Diploidy is a product of sex. Even asexual diploids had sexual ancestors (because they contain at least some of the genetic machinery involved in meiosis, even if they no longer indulge). There are no exceptions, to my knowledge. Asexuality in diploid eukaryotes is a derived characteristic, not the starting point. Sex likely played a significant part in eukaryogenesis.

    So: sex arose in haploid populations, by fusion and subsequent division, rather than in diploid populations by division and subsequent fusion. This simple flip of perspective profoundly changes the constraints. In the latter, you have to find another ‘divider’ to fuse with, and if you’re the first, there aren’t any. This is similar to ‘who did the first female mate with?’. But start with haploidy and fusion instead, and you already have a population of potential partners.

    Gender itself came later, after multicellularity. You need multicellularity to nurture eggs, or multiply pollen/sperm.

    Here

    The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” is not completely wrong, but ID proponents need to look at ways in which events can unfold but in stages rather than all at once.

  26. 26
    Alan Fox says:

    Seversky:

    It is very easy to deny the primacy of consciousness.

    To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If there is nothing to be conscious of then how can we know we are conscious? If we are rendered unconscious by an injury or just fall asleep we are not conscious of anything for that period. We only become aware of objective reality again when conscious awareness resumes when we wake up. And it appears that reality continues uninterrupted even though we were not aware of it for a period.

    My experience of general anaesthesia is also of being switched off then coming round without any impression of the passage of time. Consciousness should be kept for its original meaning where it is used as a description of the level of brain activity, formalized in the Glasgow scale, which I see avoids the controversy by calling itself the Glasgow Coma Scale now.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain

    The definition of consciousness as brain activity “thinking is what the brain does”

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” …

    That isn’t the ID approach. Grow up. What is wrong with you?

  28. 28
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    People elsewhere have already considered “who did the first sexual organism mate with?”.

    The problem is there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce eukaryotes, let alone sexual reproduction and everything that requires.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

    Except for the fact that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution.

  30. 30
    jerry says:

    Seversky quotes Larry Moran who quotes Gould and Muller as reasonable approaches.

    One thing I can guarantee is that neither side wants to debate what was said in this long quote. The two sides will just rant at each other.

    By the way, ID agrees with most of what was said by Gould and Muller except Gould went off the reservation at least once and cited something as true that is at best speculation or guess.

    So a good question is why did Seversky quote something that ID essentially agrees with. My guess, is he probably didn’t realize it.

    Next question: why does anyone answer Seversky when he rarely if ever presents anything relevant.

    Aside: no one on this site understands Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium even though it’s been pointed out what it is several times. This is just an example of the pattern of misinformation that prevails in this debate. Another example of misinformation is that ID is creationism and advocates with certainty specific processes. ID will go wherever the science actually goes and can change conclusions based on the evidence and logic. Nothing is locked in, especially the Christian God.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Alan Fox: “thinking is what the brain does”

    Not even wrong. The material brain does not, and cannot, think. Thinking is what you, via your immaterial mind, do..

    Michael Egnor, M.D.
    Are We our Brains? Philosophy and the Foundations of Neuroscience –
    Does your brain think? Does your frontal lobe decide? Or do you think and you decide? What is the relationship between the brain and and the mind; between the brain and the person? ,,,
    In this episode I speak with Dr. Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and professor of pediatric neurosurgery about some of the philosophical foundations and faulty assumptions of contemporary neuroscience.
    https://www.themoralimagination.com/episodes/michael-egnor

  32. 32
    jerry says:

    Nothing is locked in, especially the Christian God.

    Before anyone gets upset, I am definitely not arguing against the Christian God.

    What I am saying is that ID most definitely points to a creator of the universe. The Christian God is consistent with this conclusion.

    But to get to the Christian God as the specific creator, one has to go way beyond what ID can conclude.

    My main point is that neither side wants to address the issues rationally.

  33. 33
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Alan Fox
    This simple flip of perspective So: sex arose in haploid populations, by fusion and subsequent division,

    Unfortunately imagination can’t replace science and reality.
    Imagination: chemicals can design life.
    Imagination: codes emerge by chance.
    Imagination: Prokaryote become eukaryote.
    No scientific evidences for above imaginations , only empty statements with ad-hoc fictional explanations . So if you believe above statements then is a piece of cake for you to believe sex emerged by chance (one of many subsystems in the cell that interconnect for a purpose ). 😆
    To believe something without any evidence only with assumptions can’t be called science.

  34. 34
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    But to get to the Christian God as the specific creator, one has to go way beyond what ID can conclude.

    🙂 There is no difference between you and an atheist .Atheists deny the God from the start while yourself after reaching the conclusion that there indeed is a Designer you act like an atheist (not interested to find the identity of God it’s like rejecting God because other things are more important for you)

  35. 35
    Alan Fox says:

    Imagination: Prokaryote become eukaryote.

    This is hardly controversial. There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Eukaryogenesis: The Rise of an Emergent Superorganism – May 2022
    Excerpt: The eukaryotic cell is extraordinarily distinct from the much simpler bacterial and archaeal cells of the prokaryotic domains. It possesses not only a nucleus and a mitochondrion, but also a sophisticated endomembrane system, a complex cytoskeleton and a unique sexual cycle, leaving the gap between cells of prokaryotic and eukaryotic design as the greatest chasm in biology.
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.858064/full

    Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – Oct. 30, 2015
    Excerpt: However, now that genome sequencing is inexpensive and widespread, the evolutionary story of endosymbiosis has become increasingly clouded and controversial. As new bacterial and eukaryotic genomes are sequenced and the proteins they encode are deduced, the whole evolutionary idea of endosymbiosis has been thrown into utter confusion.
    One of the most unexpected discoveries has been the utter lack of identified genes that would support the evolutionary tale. As stated in a recent paper,
    “What was not anticipated was how relatively few mitochondrial proteins with bacterial homologs [sequence similarity] would group specifically with -Proteobacteria in phylogenetic [evolutionary tree] reconstructions: At most, only 10–20% of any of the mitochondrial proteomes examined so far display a robust -proteobacterial signal.4”
    This lack of evidence for mitochondrial genes derived from bacterial origin in both the mitochondrial DNA and the genome contained in the cell’s nucleus, where most mitochondrial genes are located, is a serious problem for the evolutionary story.,,,
    http://www.icr.org/article/end.....ory-crisis

    Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 18, 2015
    Abstract
    In the grand schema of evolution, a mythical prokaryote to eukaryote cellular transition allegedly gave rise to the diversity of eukaryotic life (eukaryogenesis). One of the key problems with this idea is the fact that the prokaryotic world itself is divided into two apparent domains (bacteria and archaea) and eukarya share similarities to both domains of prokaryotes while also exhibiting many major innovative features found in neither. In this article, we briefly review the current landscape of the controversy and show how the key molecular features surrounding DNA replication, transcription, and translation are fundamentally distinct in eukarya despite superficial similarities to prokaryotes, particularly archaea. These selected discontinuous molecular chasms highlight the impossibility for eukarya having evolved from archaea. In a separate paper, we will address alleged similarities between eukarya and bacteria.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-archaea-and-eukarya/

    Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 25, 2015
    Excerpt: In a previous report, we showed that a vast chasm exists between archaea and eukarya in regard to basic molecular machines involved in DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation. The differences in information processing mechanisms and systems are even greater between bacteria and eukarya, which we elaborate upon in this report. Based on differences in lineage-specific essential gene sets and in the vital molecular machines between bacteria and eukarya, we continue to demonstrate that the same unbridgeable evolutionary chasms exist—further invalidating the myth of eukaryogenesis.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/

  37. 37
    Alan Fox says:

    ET

    The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” …

    That isn’t the ID approach.

    ET chooses a snippet creatively. What I said:

    The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” is not completely wrong, but ID proponents need to look at ways in which events can unfold but in stages rather than all at once.

    So Mike Behe’s argument about an edge to evolution and irreducible complexity isn’t an ID approach?

  38. 38
    hnorman42 says:

    I always thought sexual selection was a bit of a red herring. One must always keep in mind the difference between “selection of” versus “selection for”. It’s the difference between shopping for the best TV on the shelf and shopping for the parts to make that TV. The latter makes no sense in terms of survival of the fittest.

    It makes no difference whether you’re shopping for yourself, your wife, your kin or a group. You still have to coordinate disparate elements to do anything worthwhile.

  39. 39
    jerry says:

    not interested to find the identity of God it’s like rejecting God because other things are more important for you

    You are making things up.

    I certainly did not say or imply that. I suggest you deal with what people say.

    If you think that ID points to the Christian God, then make the case. I believe ID points to a creator that is consistent with the Christian God. In fact I believe ID is a fantastic first step to understanding what the creator is about. And have said so many times.

    The problem with this site is that people just want to hold forth on what they believe and not understand what others are saying or even what they themselves are saying. And mostly what others are saying are just personal opinions, many with little justification. I gave a perfect example when Severesky quotes Larry Moran with something that is almost 100% consistent with ID.

    Then there are anti ID people who nearly 100% of the time have no justification for what they are saying. But it is not just them. Nobody likes to be told that their opinions are not justified. But they still want to express their opinions, justified or not.

  40. 40
    jerry says:

    There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.

    So what?

    It is begging the question to assume a mechanism for how they got together if in fact they did. They might have combined but then how is an interesting question.

    There is a huge gap in the world’s understanding of something and what caused this something, whatever this something is. This is especially true of Evolution, using Larry Moran discussion above. We have no idea what has caused Evolution even if it is a fact that it has happened.

    It is interesting that ID is mainly about cosmology and OOL and dabbles in Evolution less so. But there is far more information about the fact of Evolution. There is little information about the mechanism of Evolution. Because of this plethora of facts, that is where the discussion centers. Not because it is the most relevant.

  41. 41
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 39,

    Everyone has an opinion. Here, I want facts, just facts.

  42. 42
  43. 43
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Alan Fox
    This is hardly controversial. There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.

    We add another imagination to the magic list of darwinists . Impressive. All examples are identical with Urey-Miller hoax ,the show few aminoacids and infer cell.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_bursaria

    Another joke. Jumping from endosymbiotic relationship to imaginary prokaryote to eukaryote . Our intestinal bacteria is evidence that we evolved from those bacteria ,right? :)))

  44. 44
    Alan Fox says:

    We add another imagination to the magic list of darwinists.

    I thought ID was an alternative approach to explaining observed reality. I seem to be mistaken and the ID approach is to ignore reality.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Per Alan’s link at 42: “Paramecium bursaria is a species of ciliate found in marine and brackish waters.[1] It has a mutualistic endosymbiotic relationship with green algae called Zoochlorella. The algae live inside the Paramecium in its cytoplasm and provide it with food, while the Paramecium provides the algae with movement and protection.”

    So what? Humans also have a “mutualistic endosymbiotic relationship” with bacteria.

    NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
    Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
    http://www.nih.gov/news/health.....gri-13.htm

    Of Humans and Our Microbial Guests: A Dynamic and Living Balance – Stephen L. Talbott – Dec. 9, 2014
    Excerpt: A rapidly swelling literature is testifying to human dependence upon the diverse microorganisms — collectively, the microbiome (or microbiota) — we play host to. By common admission, we have hardly begun to figure out how these microorganisms affect us,,,
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ome_25.htm

    Moreover, that bacteria would be helping us in essential ways, instead of eating us, is completely antithetical to the entire ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that lies behind Darwin’s theory,

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for?

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

    Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down successful reproduction.

    In fact, Darwin himself offered the following as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – page 241
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/Va.....-1859.html

    Moreover, besides ‘benevolent bacteria’ being antithetical to Darwin’s theory, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the fact that a single cell somehow becomes tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.

    Out of One Cell, Many Tissues — But How? – May 15, 2018,
    Excerpt: From this solitary cell emerges the galaxy of others needed to build an organism, with each new cell developing in the right place at the right time to carry out a precise function in coordination with its neighbors.
    This feat is one of the most remarkable in the natural world, and despite decades of study, a complete understanding of the process has eluded biologists.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/out-of-one-cell-many-tissues-but-how/

    One Body – animation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

    Shoot, Darwinism, besides NOT qualifying as a hard science (Robert Marks), doesn’t even make for good science fiction.

    Verse:

    Psalms 139:14
    I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

  46. 46
    jerry says:

    I seem to be mistaken and the ID approach is to ignore reality.

    No, ID is based on reality. That’s a fact.

    But some people’s version of reality is their imagination and their wishful thinking. Interesting is that for some, reality supports their wishful thinking. But certainly not for any anti ID person. That also is a fact.

  47. 47
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    I thought ID was an alternative approach to explaining observed reality.

    Nope ,we reject darwinist imaginary interpretations of reality not reality. Big difference.

  48. 48
    Alan Fox says:

    Nope ,we reject darwinist imaginary interpretations of reality not reality. Big difference.

    Indeed there is. There’s little point in a discussion when we can’t agree on basic facts. Do you feel like suggesting any common ground from where we could start? Alternative facts are a problem for me. I mean, can we agree that a terrestrial cloudless sky looks blue to all human observers who are not visually impaired?

  49. 49
    jerry says:

    little point in a discussion when we can’t agree on basic facts

    No problem.

    ID agrees that evolution happened. The concept of evolution here is defined as different species appeared and most disappeared at various times in the last 3 billion years. So evolution under this concept is a fact according to ID. Those are facts.

    ID agrees that change has happened during our time and this has been essentially covered in genetics. But this is not Evolution and here I constantly use a capital E for Evolution to distinguish it from the changes which happen due to genetic processes. So some change in life forms have nothing to do with the fact of Evolution.

    Any problem with common descent?

    Yes, it is too nebulous.

    We discussed the variations of it a few weeks ago. So you may want to read that and offer up a rebuttal.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-could-we-test-universal-common-descent/

    Aside: others may have their facts to be considered. The above are my initial set.

    Aside2: a cloudless sky looks blue except during some sunsets and at night.

  50. 50
    Alan Fox says:

    Excellent, Jerry. Any problem with common descent?

  51. 51
    Alan Fox says:

    OK, Jerry, I was looking at a glorious red sunset this evening.

  52. 52
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 49,

    Evolution happened? Over 3 billion years? I doubt it.

  53. 53
    Alan Fox says:

    That’s fine, Relatd.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    I seem to be mistaken and the ID approach is to ignore reality.

    We are sick of your false accusations, Alan. Please tell us what reality ID ignores.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    This is hardly controversial. There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.

    Not really. A common design explains the similarities. And eukaryotes are much more than one prokaryote living inside of another. Also there is just as much evidence that proks are stripped-down versions of euks.

    Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

    link

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Wow:

    The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” is not completely wrong, but ID proponents need to look at ways in which events can unfold but in stages rather than all at once.

    So Mike Behe’s argument about an edge to evolution and irreducible complexity isn’t an ID approach?

    Again, “The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened”” is not even wrong.

    ID’s science is to find the IC, CSI or SC. Why isn’t it up to evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that something A) can arise in stages and B) that blind and mindless processes did it?

    In response to Behe’s “edge”, a paper titled “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was published. The waiting time for two mutations puts the alleged common ancestry of chimps and humans well out of the reach of blind and mindless processes. But that is moot as the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans isn’t a matter of genetics.

  57. 57
    Silver Asiatic says:

    With Michael Behe’s first book, he was talking about irreducible complexity and he focused on some unique aspects in biology. Other than that, he was fully a Darwinian evolutionist.
    His second book looked at the Edge of Evolution – as ET explains – it’s waiting time for two mutations. This is empirically measurable evidence for ID – it’s not just “it’s too complex”. But Behe was losing confidence in what the Darwinian mechanism could produce by this time.
    His next book Darwin Devolves questions evolution even more since he shows that mutations mainly are damaging or breaking genes and not innovating new features.
    To me, this shows the power of the ID inference. Behe is moving farther from a full acceptance of evolutionary theory the more he researches it.

  58. 58
    Alan Fox says:

    @ ET

    A press release from 2006 saying “we didn’t find stuff so it isn’t there”? Might just look at the primary source and see how many positive cites it has acquired.

    ETA well that NBC report is a bit coy about its source. Can anyone else work out what research the article is based on?

    ETA2 Never mind.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Penny

    Might have known.

  59. 59
    BobRyan says:

    Since we are off the topic of selection, how about this to prove the Judaeo-Christian worldview of God correct. Genesis states God created all the animals before God created man as something unique in the world. After God created man, God rested from creation. The fossil records show a lot of species existed prior to man, but nothing new after man.

    The answer as to why there are no new animals coming into existence, since there is no evidence of speciation, is God stopped creating species after man.

  60. 60
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Alan Fox
    Do you feel like suggesting any common ground from where we could start?

    There is a real code in the cell or not ? If yes tell us the natural mechanism for building functional code.
    How chemicals create syntax, semantics, and pragmatics level simultaneously for all the codes from living organisms :(I copy-paste few codes)
    1. The Adhesive Code (Readies and Takeichi 1996; Shapiro and Colman 1999)
    2. The Sugar Code (Gabius 2000; Gabius et al. 2002)
    3. The Histone Code (Strahl and Allis 2000; Turner 2000, 2002; Gamble and
    Freedman 2002)
    4. The Neural Transcriptional Codes (Jessell 2000; Flames et al. 2007)
    5. A Regulatory Code in mammalian organogenesis (Scully and Rosenfeld 2002)
    6. A Code of Post Translational Modifications (Khidekel and Hsieh-Wilson 2004)
    7. A Neural Code for written words (Dehaene et al. 2005)
    8. A Nuclear Receptors Combinatorial Code (Perissi and Rosenfeld 2005)
    9. A Transcription Factors Code (Tootle and Rebay 2005)
    10. An Acetylation Code (Knights et al. 2006)
    11. An Estrogen Receptor Code (Leader et al. 2006)
    12. The Metabolic Codes (Bruni 2007)
    13. The RNA Codes (Faria 2007)
    14. The Error-Correcting Codes (Battail 2007; Gonzalez 2008)
    15. The Modular Code of the Cytoskeleton (Gimona 2008)
    16. A Lipid-based Code in nuclear signaling (Maraldi 2008)
    17. The Immune Self Code (Neuman 2008)
    18. The Signal Transduction Codes (Faria 2008)

  61. 61
    ET says:

    Alan Fox- Learn how to read. There wasn’t anything in the press release that supports your trope.

  62. 62
    Alan Fox says:

    There wasn’t anything in the press release that supports your trope.

    Luckily for me I can still manage to get about without additional support for my trope.

  63. 63
    ET says:

    Yes, a lack of integrity doesn’t prevent anyone from getting about, Alan. That’s a good thing for you.

  64. 64
    Alan Fox says:

    LCD

    There is a real code in the cell or not ? If yes tell us the natural mechanism for building functional code.

    There’s a storage and retrieval system in cells, essential to reproduction and metabolism. One central aspect of that system is widely referred to as the genetic code. If you are asking me to give a full account of how it functions and how it evolved, I have to disappoint you. Enrolling in a suitable class or online course, maybe an introductory text book may help.

  65. 65
    asauber says:

    “If you are asking me to give a full account of how it functions and how it evolved, I have to disappoint you.”

    My 2 cents.

    How evasive.

    Not disappointed.

    Not surprised.

    Andrew

  66. 66
    ET says:

    Yes, Alan. It’s referred to as the genetic code because experimental evidence says it is a real code. And there aren’t any answers in any textbooks or classes. No one knows how evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities.

  67. 67
    Alan Fox says:

    Not sure where you got that list from, LCD. Never heard of 1. Item 2? Gabius died not long ago and his ideas haven’t caught on. Item 3 Histones are proteins rich in basic aminoacids around which DNA can spool. Involved in methylation which is another item on your list.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerry claims, “ID will go wherever the science actually goes and can change conclusions based on the evidence and logic. Nothing is locked in, especially the Christian God.

    Especially???

    “Especially” implies that other worldviews would have a better chance at being ‘locked in’ to science than Christianity. This implication, whether it was intended or not by Jerry, is simply not true. Far from it.

    “Especially” seeing that modern science was born out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions,

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s inductive methodology)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – Stephen Meyer – video – (April 2022)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ

    And “especially” seeing the modern science is still crucially dependent upon Judeo-Christian presuppositions,

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    Then I would have to say that if any worldview was “especially locked in” to modern science then it would definitely have to be the Judeo-Christian worldview, and no other worldview, that was “especially locked in”

    The Christian Origins of Science – Jack Kerwick – Apr 15, 2017
    Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,,
    Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,,
    In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.”
    He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”
    https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

  69. 69
    ET says:

    codebiology.org, Alan

  70. 70
    jerry says:

    I repeat

    Before anyone gets upset, I am definitely not arguing against the Christian God.

    What I am saying is that ID most definitely points to a creator of the universe. The Christian God is consistent with this conclusion.

    But to get to the Christian God as the specific creator, one has to go way beyond what ID can conclude.

    ID is compatible with the Jewish god, the Muslim god, and probably a lot of other conceptions of god. But only Christianity has a trinity and ID definitely does not point to such a God. It certainly does not rule it out and as I have said ID is consistent with such a God.

    But to get to the Christian God, one has to use a lot of other things besides ID to reach that conclusion. And as I have often said, when ID becomes widely accepted, the real food fight begins. There will be a debate over which versions of the creator are correct and within Christians which of the hundreds of current versions of Christianity is correct if any or maybe all are.

    Aside: I believe keeping religion out of ID is the best course for getting ID accepted. It seems that many do not agree since religion is a popular topic on this specific ID site. Especially Christianity.

  71. 71
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 70,

    “I believe keeping religion out of ID is the best course for getting it accepted.” Accepted by who? Atheists? Or people in general? ID makes sense, blind, unguided chance does not. And living things not only look designed, they are designed. Nothing hard about that.

    And right now, people are connecting ID to the Christian God. It’s in the Bible – God created.

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerry states: “Aside: I believe keeping religion out of ID is the best course for getting ID accepted.”

    Well first, as pointed out, you can’t even ‘do science’ without first assuming some essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true, and secondly, perhaps you first ought to convince atheists to keep their ‘religion’ out of Darwinism before you try to tell Christians to keep their religion out of ID?

    In other words, although Darwinists, (and others), will often falsely claim that theology, (“especially” Christianity), has no place in science, it turns out that evolutionary biology itself is crucially dependent on faulty theological presuppositions,

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty, even false, theological presuppositions, instead of on any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.

    “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.”
    – Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

  73. 73
    Alan Fox says:

    codebiology.org, Alan

    Lot of dead links at that site. Even that of Barbieri himself. Looks a bit fringe.

  74. 74
    ET says:

    Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is beyond fringe. It’s a full-blown cult.

    The dead links are just personal pages. I understand that your tactic is to attack the messengers and ignore the science and evidence, but you don’t have to be so blatant about it!

    The home page for Code Biology is fully referenced. And that site has information on all the codes LCD listed. That was the point, Alan.

  75. 75
    Silver Asiatic says:

    “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” – Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1

    Design is the default view. Dawkins makes that perfectly clear in the beginning of his book. What he calls “apparent design” requires an explanation.

    Many of these billions of nerve cells [in the human brain] have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurons. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.
    Blind Watchmaker – preface

    The “elegant efficiency” of “this amount of complex design” is perfectly obvious to Richard Dawkins.

    So, the ID position is the default, intuitive view. The mindless-evolutionary position has to climb up a very steep mountain of improbability. It has to have extraordinary evidence.

    Instead, the evolution view is weak, contradictory, patched-up with ad-hoc notions and mysteries. But evolutionists remain defiant. They will wait for their view, alone, to be validated.
    lf there were no religious and metaphysical consequences, it would be easy for scientists to admit that the elegantly-efficient complex apparent-design, is actually real evidence of design.
    But people will be brought face-to-face with the evidence and still back away.

    The ID view is not only the default, common-sense, intuitive view – but it’s supported by evidence. It’s the strongest proposal and more and more people are recognizing that.

  76. 76
    BobRyan says:

    It is not just the Christian that has proven important, but Judaeo-Christian for ID. Severing the root of Christianity has caused numerous problems. When the root is remembered, greater scientific freedom arises for both men and women who were created to be scientists.
    Islamic countries do not allow women to succeed at anything. The same holds true for most socialist/communist countries where men rule. Hindus and Buddhists both put men above women.
    Judaism has 7 prophetesses; Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah and Esther. Those women are celebrated in Judaism, which is rooted in respect for women, not controlling them or seeing them as less than men.
    Jewish tradition holds that God chose the rib for a reason, rather than some other bone. Had God chosen the foot, man would have crushed and held back woman. Had God chosen the head, woman would have led. God chose the rib so man and woman would be equal and a completion of each other.
    There have been tremendous advancements by women who were Jews and Christians. In countries where something other than Judaeo-Christian, women were never given the chance to do anything.

  77. 77
    tjguy says:

    @Seversky Post #2

    “How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection and Roughgarden and Remoff are right?”

    An EXCELLENT question and a problematic one. Why, if this is science, can’t we do an experiment and repeat it 15 times and either verify or falsify the hypothesis?!!

    See. This is the problem with so much of Darwinism. You can’t test it. You can’t verify/falsify it. People take certain data and interpret it within the evolution paradigm and say “See? Now we have evidence.” But they don’t. It’s just their just so story to explain the data within the paradigm – which itself has yet to be verified. There are too many problems with that evolution cannot adequately explain or cannot be adequately demonstrated to say that the paradigm has been validated.

    How do we know? Very good question indeed! Keep on thinking about that Sev!

  78. 78
    jerry says:

    Alan Fox has disappeared from this thread and his attempt to have a discussion.

    I understand the chances of having a civil discussion is almost impossible here as it would be on any forum he would suggest.

    But if ever such a discussion takes place, I would ask him to answer the objections to naturalized Evolution that are in the current thread.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-phys-org-uncharted-genetic-territory-offers-insight-into-human-specific-proteins

    This thread is on humans but the answers everyone seems to want are in every species, some of which might be much easier to analyze than humans.

    Prediction: few are interested in a civil discussion so it won’t happen. It definitely cannot happen here.

  79. 79
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 78,

    You can be the civil one. You can do it, and maybe a few others.

    I’m a moderator on another board and I see people acting like 5 year olds in a playground. The board is still there, but the ones who can’t control themselves have been kicked out.

  80. 80
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bob

    It is not just the Christian that has proven important, but Judaeo-Christian for ID.

    I have not seen it said that ID is Judaeo-Christian. But there is also the Judaeo-Islamic view also.
    The Koran celebrates Moses wife as a prophetess having received a revelation from God.

    Those women are celebrated in Judaism, which is rooted in respect for women, not controlling them or seeing them as less than men.

    Rabbis have said that women are barred from receiving higher education. They declared that college education for girls is “dangerous” and “against the Torah,” and that “no girls attending our school are allowed to study and get a degree,”

    Satmar women are required to cover their necklines fully, and to wear long sleeves, long, conservative skirts, and full stockings. Whereas married Orthodox Jewish women do not show their hair in public, in Satmar, this is taken a step further: Satmar women shave their heads after their weddings, and wear a wig or other covering over their heads, while some cover the wig with a small hat or scarf

    You also stated

    In countries where something other than Judaeo-Christian, women were never given the chance to do anything.

    That’s the feminist view, but I wouldn’t say that being a wife and a mother is “doing nothing”.

Leave a Reply