My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads

_{Gil Dodgen

September 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Because of my many duties and responsibilities I post infrequently at UD. However, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon: My posts seem to inspire a great amount of debate and very long threads, as is the case here.

I have a theory about why this is the case.

My thesis is that people like me, a former materialist atheist, who have been influenced by logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., the ID movement) represent the greatest threat to the reigning nihilistic and anti-intellectual Darwinian orthodoxy.

Comments

equinoxe, I'd rather be pre or post Darwinian thinking, indeed both, than Darwinian.Clive Hayden_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Hey, guys, this is a blog. We need some occasional distraction, and possibly fun. "Just talk science and philosophy" can ne boring, sometimes (and I believe I do that often enough to know...) :)gpuccio_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Slow news day, Gil? Posts like this are the worst feature of UD by far. Trust me, for people hovering on the edge, these triumphalist rhetorical hand-grenades are a real put-off. If you want people to consider what ID has to offer, I'd desist. However, I agree that
ID has become a stumbling block to materialists. The more they attack it, they more they expose the weakness of their position.
It seems that much of the traffic on here takes the form of two dismissive strategies: (1) Condescension from a position of numerical inferiority: that is what the many would say. After all, they all back each other up. Tax dollars, peer review, Kuhnian paradigms, follow popular trends, scientific orthodoxy, etc... We are proud to be the bastion of enlightened reason. The remnant of pre-Darwinian free-thinking. (2) Condescension from a position of numerical superiority: That is what the renegade few would say. After all, most of them are lawyers and engineers. (The latter work with their hands. Urgh!) We are proud to be the bastion of enlightened reason. The remnant of post-Darwinian free-thinking. All this seriously impedes the flow of ideas. It makes ID thoroughly unattractive those who occupy a marginal position and just bolsters the popular conception that ID is just an Internet-based "popular movement". Just talk science and philosophy. Less "communal" ad hominem. Occasion jokes. That would constitute the ideal forum IMHO. (Having said that, Gil, some of your other posts are ace. I'm not getting at you.)equinoxe_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Cabal said: "Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, except it takes a little more than looking at an apple tree to understand it." This comparison of Evolution to gravity is a frequent theme in Darwinian responses to critiques of Darwinism. Let's look at it a little more closely. The "fact" of gravity is simply that objects fall to earth when unsupported. The first theory of gravity that I am aware of was Newton's, which was that material objects exert a force on each other proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The second theory was Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which stated that matter warps the space-time continuum in such a way that their paths as they move through space create the effect we observe as the "fact" of gravity. Some physicists are currently working on a third theory, quantum gravity, to bring that phenomenon under the purview of quantum mechanics. These theories of gravity are explanations, if you will, of the "fact" of gravity. The "fact" of evolution is nothing more than what is observed in the fossil record, namely that the variety of living organisms has increased dramatically over geologic time. Darwinism is an explanation of that phenomenon, just as Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity are explanations of the phenomenon of gravity. The difference is that the latter two theories have been experimentally and observationally verified repeatedly in their respective domains of application, whereas there is no evidence whatsoever, either observational or experimental, that random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing macro-evolutionary change. In fact, what experimental and observational evidence there is points in the opposite direction, as Behe (The Edge of Evolution) and many others have pointed out.Bruce David_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

allanius,
ID has become a stumbling block to materialists. The more they attack it, they more they expose the weakness of their position.
This was demonstrated perfectly by Cabal in the comment just before yours. Assertions void of evidence ("mountains" of evidence of RM+NS=fCSI, which we continuously request), strawman representations of ID, unjust categorization of ID = pure faith while Darwinism = pure reason, etc. These statements get hoards fired up on Pharyngula but have absolutely no footing in cold reason or evidence.uoflcard_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Cabal,
No atheism, no worship of Darwin, or irrational reasons required to accept the theory of evolution.
No (at least on your first two assertions), but the theory of evolution is required to be true for atheism to be "intellectually fulfilling", which is central to the main thesis of the OP. As far as not needing "irrational reasons" for believing evolution to be true, that is debatable. We believe there is a striking lack of evidence that natural mechanisms can produce the fCSI of life. We constantly request this "abundance" of evidence that has supposedly been gathered demonstrating this alleged capability of natural evolution but have yet to be supplied with it. There is also a fundamental difference between evidence for common ancestry and evidence for natural evolution's vast creative powers. If that evidence really does exist, then this debate is over.
The facts point conclusively to two alternatives: 1: God did it, am doing it, and in ways that forever will prevent us from detecting it. 2. Science is right.
This kind of statement cannot be taken seriously. It is a sickly strawman of ID and a complete lie about the current state of the debate. Why waste your time arguing about that imaginary world?uoflcard_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

ID has become a stumbling block to materialists. The more they attack it, they more they expose the weakness of their position. Let us sincerely hope, then, that the present post produces the usual display of smug dismissiveness, arguments from authority, red herrings, arguments ad hominem, changing the subject, and willful disregard of the obvious. After all, the wonderful thing about ID is that it is self-evident. Simple common sense tells us that what we perceive with our senses was designed. Those who oppose ID, then, must put themselves in the position of opposing simple common sense and exposing themselves as Laputans and lovers of theory. Basic research reveals, for example, that the chance of life coming from that which is not life is vanishingly small. First the Laputans try to reduce this improbability from infinite, unimaginable numbers to something slightly less than infinite, as if it mattered. Then they get spooked and invoke multiverses. Multiverse is a classic Laputan concept. It has nothing to do with science or that which can be observed. Science goes a-whoring when it embraces purely theoretical notions. In this case, it has gotten into bed with Zarathustra and his insane egotism, which have nothing at all to do with science and everything to do with glorifying men. ID threatens the hegemony of materialism and Modernism by daring to point out the obvious. The natives are restess, and the Laputans, aliens from academia, are finding it more and more difficult to control them. Hence the heavy-handed, unscientific rhetoric seen in Dawkins, Provine, Myers, et al. The king tries to crush the rebels with his floating island. Gil has formulated this conflict plainly and without art. It is his very plainness that stirs up so much emotion in the rear guard. The rebels have come out into plain sight, emboldened by the weakness of the cultural elite. They must be crushed before all is lost.allanius_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that the theory of evolution is just another scientific theory? The theory of evolution is dependent on a lot of other scientific theories and if one of those should fail, evolution might fail too - or at least have to be modified to account for and incorporate the consequences into the theory. It is however interesting to note that it has stood the test of time, some 150 years of it. AFAIK, the relative chronology of geological column was quite well established even before Darwin presented his theory m even though the timescale was not known at that time. Developments over 150 years have strengthened and underbuilt the theory in a way hardly matched by any other theory. The facts point conclusively to two alternatives: 1: God did it, am doing it, and in ways that forever will prevent us from detecting it. 2. Science is right. All the arguments about atheism, materialism and such might just as well be used on every field of science since nearly all of them contribute in some way to the theory of evolution. No atheism, no worship of Darwin, or irrational reasons required to accept the theory of evolution. But for people already possessed of and motivated by a strong faith the notion that other people also are motivated by faith instead of what is conceived as facts may of course appear as a legitimate inference. Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, except it takes a little more than looking at an apple tree to understand it.Cabal_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

markf (9):
What kind of response were you expecting? It seems obvious that intelligent, educated, scientifically literate opponents are more likely to come up with demanding problems with evolutionary theory than stupid, uneducated, scientifically illerate opponents.
The problem is that most people on these internet forums and comment sections frequently attack a strawman version of ID, where ID advocates are really just evangelicals in disguise, no different than young Earth creationists, etc, and they are arguing for political reasons (to "poison" our classrooms, kill science, etc.). Yes, many ID advocates are Christians, and some even believe in a young Earth, but most are scientifically literate truth-seekers who see the evidence and see the most obvious (and only viable) explanation to be design; this is independent of their worldview.uoflcard_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

If there is nothing but “blind, pitiless indifference” to the universe and to humanity, then what’s the point in doing anything?
Because you love your spouse, your children, your parents, and they are counting on you?Pedant_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

vsakko @2 - No, he's not saying that. The problem is that evolution has ceased to be a mere scientific theory and has, um, evolved into an all-encompassing worldview that presupposes atheism. I don't think the two can or should be linked but popular writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Jared Diamond have done so. If there is nothing but "blind, pitiless indifference" to the universe and to humanity, then what's the point in doing anything?Barb_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

It would be interesting to find out why some posts produce long discussions. I doubt it is because anyone is feeling their position is threatened. Most people of all persuasions are certain they are right. Speaking for myself I get involved if: (a) It is something new (as this is). Most of the discussions on UD repeat the same themes again and again. (b) I spot something that I strongly believe is an error in an area I know about. (c) Gpuccio or Vjtorley are involved because they will be polite, relevant and informed (although wrong). (d) I have some spare time and feel like a debate! I rarely respond to a post directly (this is an exception). It is usually someone's comment that makes me want to get involved. That is simply because there are far more comments than posts. It would be interesting to hear what motivates other people to get involved in a particular discussion.markf_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

#3 Bruce David I have yet to get a direct response to any such statement, however What kind of response were you expecting? It seems obvious that intelligent, educated, scientifically literate opponents are more likely to come up with demanding problems with evolutionary theory than stupid, uneducated, scientifically illerate opponents.markf_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio, I don't think that 97% of biologists are anti-intellectual or even materialists, I think they just see how well the usual scientific tools seem to work in other fields, and think, why should evolutionary biology be different? But it is different, the problems evolutionary biologists are trying to solve are not just harder, they are fundamentally different from those faced by other scientists, for reasons I think are made most clear though the argument presented here. Actually, I suspect that a lot more than 3% of professional biologists are at least starting to realize that evolutionary biology is indeed special.Granville Sewell_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

vsakko: if you are looking for a provocation, let's have it: So you’re saying that about 97% of professional biologists are nihilistic and anti-intellectual And I say: why not?gpuccio_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Gil: I would add that your posts are lovable, and that's why probably some love them, and others are disturbed. There is nothing to be humble about that: it's a fine quality.gpuccio_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Kyrilluk, I can understand your point of view. However, Gil is right. His posts indeed have a tendency to inspire debate. In this post he raises the question why, and tells us his opinion, which is eye-opening to me, as I also come from similar background. The wording is short and right to the point and he indeed avoided several rounds unnecessary curtesy. I think it was a matter of fact post. The point is not a percieved "success" or "superiority" to some other posters, but rather to encourage similar people to stand up and become more visible to the Darwinist establishment. Of course, Gil has the right to correct me...Alex73_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

You're probably a very clever person but unless this post was ironic, probably not a very humble one.Kyrilluk_{September 15, 2010
September
09
Sep
15
15
2010
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

Gil, I occasionally get into long arguments with Darwinists on this site or under an Amazon book review, and I sometimes tell them that I am a representative of the greatest threat to their point of view, namely intelligent, educated, scientifically literate people, formerly believers in Darwinism, who find the arguments for ID compelling and the Darwinist responses totally inadequate. I have yet to get a direct response to any such statement, however.Bruce David_{September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

So you're saying that about 97% of professional biologists are nihilistic and anti-intellectual?vsakko_{September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Oh,oh oh, let me be first to start this looong thread by saying that, yes, I would agree with your statement. In a few months, I should like to start writing on exactly this topic. I'm not aware of any apologists that focus exclusively, or even largely, on using the materials you mention to challenge the reigning paradigm, nihilism, and the utter meaninglessness of it all... given materialism.NZer_{September 14, 2010
September
09
Sep
14
14
2010
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply