Okay, Darwin follower …

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 16, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

The boss here is an American, so he tends to be courteous. Canadians, like some of his help, were raised on ice hockey, so …

Anyway, in response to Reasonable people doubt science the way we doubt used car dealers, one of Darwin’s wise has responded,

Every thing we know is a belief of one sort or another. We believe the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning because that’s what it’s always done.

We don’t step off the top off tall buildings without any other means of support because we believe we’ll fall to the ground and be killed.

Reasonable people stop believing in vaccines and we start seeing a resurgence of measles or polio.

Most of us are not in any position to test every scientific claim personally. We believe in the theory of evolution because we trust people who have spent their professional lives studying it that there is good evidence to support it, better than for any other explanation. They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they’ve a mind.

Reasonable people also doubt the theory of evolution in many cases because the religion they believe in – and which is very dear to them – says different, at least according to some. That belief overrides all others.

So no disconfirmation of Darwinism – explicitly – makes any difference at all if those who get a salary off it don’t dispute it? That is what the fellow seems to be saying.

Comments

Well, I find it very hard to believe that their answers are representative of the path most creationists/Iders take to their beliefs, given how uniquely American creationism is.
The dodge continues. You are equating ID with creationism and you know that it not true. So why do it? Take ID out of your discourse on this and maybe one will consider you seriously.jerry_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

In my opinion, it's largely a product of American Protestantism, arising from the abandonment of Christian theological development through the Holy Church in favor of a strongly individualistic re-interpretation of Bible under the guise of Sola Scriptura, which goes far beyond the intention and actual practices of Martin Luther himself. The result has been an explosion of Protestant variants in America that can justify just about any stance in the absence of any other source of knowledge.rhampton7_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

WD400, What you would call "Creationism" or the like is only heavily American in the context of Europe and its direct extensions; the core reason being that radical secularism is less further along in the US and maybe has hit its high water mark and is palpably receding as did Marxism before it . . . explaining the air of desperate rage joined to sophomoric reasoning and trollishness so often shown by New Atheists. It is after all evidently self-defeating. KFkairosfocus_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?
It is because people in the US truly believe in democracy and don't like being told what to believe in. It's all about freedom from know-it-alls.Mapou_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

WD400, I can speak for myself. 30+ years ago, I came to see that evolutionary materialism was inherently self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#slf_ref Later, as I looked at the issue of thermodynamics and information, I came to first try the design argument as a for argument view. Observing the balance of responses led me to conclude that I was seeing the same sort of willfully obtuse ideological indoctrination I had seen with the Marxists long since. As Lewontin et al document. (The current exchanges that pivot on refusal to acknowledge that 100+ years ago, 2LOT was placed on a statistical foundation are sadly typical.) KFkairosfocus_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

But why the dodge? Why not deal with those who answered your first question or do you accept their answers as accurate.
Well, I find it very hard to believe that their answers are representative of the path most creationists/Iders take to their beliefs, given how uniquely American creationism is.wd400_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

with all those PhD’s clapping in loud approval.
Great illustration of the word claptrap. Gullible people are trapped into clapping for something that is bogus because it superficially appears true. Hence the origin of the word "claptrap."jerry_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

When I was a pubescent child, I started reading a couple of creationist books that belonged to my dad; I don't remember titles, but I know at least one was Henry Morris and maybe a Duane Gish tossed in there for good measure. Anyway, they spoke profoundly to me. Now, I am no young-earth creationist, though I am not prepared to say dogmatically that it's not true. It's just that their ideas about starlight and radiometric testing don't hold up to TRUE scientific scrutiny. However, those authors did open to my eyes to the evolutionary fairy tales that have circulated for the past 100 years. Those books inspired me to continue studying, so during my freshman year in college, I proposed to write my end-of-course paper for my composition class on the frailty of evolutionary theory. My instructor, very kind and sympathetic, nonetheless warned me that I wouldn't be able to write an objective paper on the topic. I told her I could, and she said very well, go ahead and try. Fast forward a few weeks, and she awarded me an A AND admitted she was wrong, which was far more important to me than the grade (well, in hindsight it is). I say all that not to brag, because all I did was present evidence. Most people never take time to study the evidence for themselves. Science is still viewed as a high, holy priesthood that issues infallible dogma, and only fools would dare entertain doubt. When people start peeling that onion, they discover there's not much beneath it except a few old stories about moths on trees, fake embryos and finches. Oh, and Richard Dawkins.OldArmy94_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?
It is part of some forms of Protestant Christianity and they mainly developed in the United States. Since I am not a YECm others may want to comment on that. But why the dodge? Why not deal with those who answered your first question or do you accept their answers as accurate.jerry_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

What is innovative about ID?wd400_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?
There was this news item last week ... How creationism has gained ground in Europe in the last few decades https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/how-creationism-has-gained-ground-in-europe-in-the-last-few-decades/ But I think the answer is that the USA is scientifically more adventurous. There's a climate of freedom to challenge and come up with new ideas that one doesn't find in other parts of the world. ID is a very innovative theory -- and I think the item I posted above shows that it's catching on in Europe.Silver Asiatic_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

The boss here is an American, so he tends to be courteous
I thought the boss was Barry Arrington? Well I guess he is American.Mark Frank_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

And the follow up: Why is creationism only really A Thing in the US (in the Western world at least)?wd400_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

wd400
How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?
Thanks for an interesting question. I think it starts with a gut feeling that "something isn't quite right". Education on the basics of evolution seems good enough - if you don't really think about it too deeply. But for me (and I'm guessing many other IDists) there a nagging thought that the theory makes an enormous claim but the way it's presented is in little bits and pieces of ideas. Evolution goes against a lot of basic intuitions (and common sense) and when some effort is made to get answers to the problems that the theory poses (for itself) -- a lot of confusion and negativity often results. This can push a person farther down the anti-evolution pathway. That's what happened to me. I didn't think evolution could even be challenged by anyone who was reasonably educated. I didn't have any taste for the earliest, bible-oriented creationists (I admire them more now) - so I was actually biased against them and would never take anti-Darwinism seriously. It wasn't until Michael Denton's book and then later Michael Behe's first book that I was shocked to find a highly-informed critique and some solid evidence for Intelligent Design. Once that happened, all the pieces of the puzzle came together. I discovered that there were some significant problems with evolution, and at the same time, the people defending it seemed more shrill and incoherent as the challenges arose. I discovered more and more that evolution was used to support a materialist philosophical worldview and that explained (to me) the exaggerated claims and limited actual evidence in support. Even the very best, most reasonable, seemingly most educated defenders of the theory that I've met on the web had a lot of trouble dealing with various critiques. So I disagree with the idea that evolution is opposed (and ID supported) mainly on religious grounds. I think religion can be a starting point for some intuitions about the problems with evolution, but I think research and investigation and a search for answers is the stronger impulse.Silver Asiatic_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

wd400: How do you gius (sic) think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution What it was for me was the stupid (or maybe just desperate) attempt at take down of Irreducible Complexity by Kenneth Miller, you know, mousetraps and secretory systems and all, and I was pretty open to Darwin until then. Then prior you had Dawkins and his famous light sensitive patch that just happens to grow a circular ridge around it which was supposed to bring more "focus" to the patch, whatever that means. Not only that, but these two lame efforts shot around the world of scientific and philosophical materialism like legends of revealed truth. And widely repeated among the supposed intelligentsia as the salvation of Darwin. I even bought the Dawkins story for years (even with 2 engineering degrees) until I gave it some thought, and then along came irreducible complexity and Miller's response was the nail in the coffin, with all those PhD's clapping in loud approval. But see if one is a typical materialist, one will fool himself into accepting all the just-so stories because you have to and they have to be true to make one right. There are some agnostics and atypical materialists out there who are thinking very hard on ID right now, e.g. Thomas Nagel, and in the past Anthony Flew who reversed his worldview as a result. Anyway the ID project is very fortunate to have Dawkins and Miller opposing it.groovamos_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

The "anti-science" campaign being waged by the atheist/Darwinist camp is a sign that science has been taken over by a cult. The truth is that there can be no good science unless it is continually criticized. Over and over. The Popperian principle is that science must be falsifiable. In other words, a scientist should not be on the defensive but should welcome all criticisms with open arms. Don't accuse others of being anti-science because that, too, is anti-science. Good science is strongly criticised science. Should I also mention that peer review is essentially a pretext to continue the "good old boys network"? Isn't peer review a way to tell the lay public who pay their salaries that their opinion is not worth a nickel? It's arrogant, in-your-face and insulting. And it's also elitist and fascist. I don't mind peer-review inside a private organization but as soon as they begin to receive the taxpayer's money, peer review should make way for public review. That's right: ballot, vote, etc. Everybody should have a say if they so wish.Mapou_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?
Can't speak for everyone but for myself who believed that Darwin's ideas explained life 20 years ago, went through the effort to look at the science and found no one who could defend Darwin's ideas or any other form of naturalistic processes including every single one of those that appeared here and every book I read. But given the lack of information by those who defend Darwin, I have to say that many who oppose Darwin do so on the same basis. But less on this site since many here are very well informed. It is interesting to see how people defend naturalistic evolution though and what distortion and tortuous reason they use.jerry_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

wd400, "How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?" Most of us guis arrive at our position on evolution the same way that most of you guis arrive at your position -- we follow the people that are leading us. Some of us guys, however, struggle through the issues with great care -- as discussed in my post above. Most follow, some think, those who think don't all fall into the well of the current paradigm.bFast_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

How do you gius think most IDers and creationists arrive at their position on evolution?wd400_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

This is a fun post. I am mostly intrigued by this statement:
Most of us are not in any position to test every scientific claim personally. We believe in the theory of evolution because we trust people who have spent their professional lives studying it that there is good evidence to support it, better than for any other explanation.
I really think that this accurately portrays the reason that most people buy into the theory. This statement holds the understanding that most people have as to why anyone would doubt the scientists. (Note that the doubt is not in the science, but in the integrity of the scientific community.)
Reasonable people also doubt the theory of evolution in many cases because the religion they believe in – and which is very dear to them – says different
So the question is, is religion the only rational reason to doubt the integrity of the scientific community. I say that it is not. Let me share a personal story. When I was in my late 30s, I suffered from debilitating back pain. I was a Canadian living in the USA at the time. Though I had a good job, I had no medical coverage. I remember once, however, feeling shooting pains throughout my chest, that radiated up my left arm. I was sure I was having a heart attack. I remember looking at the phone, trying to decide if I should call 911. I knew that if I did I would be in financial ruin, but. I had heard from many that Chiropractic was the best solution to back pain. However, some years earlier I had had a conversation with a med student friend who explained to me that the scientific research showed chiropractic to be no better than a placebo. I believed his "science". One day I was listening to the radio, and I heard that the US Medical Association supported abortion. If there is anyone who should realize that a fetus is a baby, it is the medical community. (After all, the father of medicine, Hippocrates, did -- and without any Judeo-Christian influence.) That event convinced me to consider that medical science is unbelievably blind and selfish. I responded by seeking chiropractic care -- after all if they were so idiotic about abortion, they couldn't be trusted regarding chiropractic. The Chriopractor showed me what was wrong with my back. He popped my back 3 times a week, and I began to heal. It didn't take too long, and he began popping my back only twice a week, then once. Treatments were required less and less often, with me experiencing less and less back pain until, after a few years, I found that I only needed chiropractic once every few years -- usually as I recovered from a cold or flu. Is my reason for suspecting the truthfulness of medical science simply religious? I have looked into "the science" on evolution. I am finding that "The science" is driven by philosophy, not by data. This is most clearly illustrated by Dr. James Shapiro, who says,
"One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process."
(http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/) Note the philosophical dismissal of the "designer" hypothesis. This is not conclusion based upon data, it is conclusion based upon philosophy. Scientists know that no designer is needed because they have a philosophical commitment to finding no evidence to support that theory. If you check out the above link (thirdway), you will see that these same scientists are bending over backwards to find an explanation for the data because the data doesn't fit the theory. But not "goddidit" because that is illegal. I cry foul. As medical science couldn't find any value in Chiropractic, so evolutionary scientist can't find design because, and only because, they refuse to consider the idea. It is denialism, plain and simple. There is truth in the arithmetic, design = designer, designer (most probably) = God. If one holds to design one gets to God. However, "sciences" doesn't begin with a blank slate, "science" begins with "not god" therefore despite the evidence "not god". Science cannot be trusted more than used car salesmen can.bFast_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

as to:
"Missed this part I guess: They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they’ve a mind."
And when someone has a 'mind', (which Darwinists deny having), to check the 'evidence' for Darwinian evolution, the supposed overwhelming 'evidence' for Darwinian evolution always evaporates into thin air:
Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance - December 31, 2013 – Cornelius Hunter PhD BioPhysics Excerpt: The evidence simply does not support evolution,,, unless it is turned upside down and forced to support the theory. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-pew-forum-poll-reveals-more.html “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Michael Behe: Intelligent Design – interview on radio program - ‘The Mind Renewed’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SmPNQrQHE "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word 'evolution' as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature:
Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase "Design Principles" - November 28, 2014 Excerpt: The word "design" appears 24 times in the paper. "Selection" appears twice, in the phrase "selective pressure" (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word "evolution" appears just once:,,, We see, therefore, that "design" references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find "machine" or "machinery" four times, "coding" or "encoding" 15 times, "information" (in terms of information to be processed) five times, "accurate" (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, "precision" 29 times, "efficient" four times, and "optimal" or "optimum" 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1. Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,, The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, "Yep, it's fit. It's optimal." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/biologists_are091531.html
bornagain77_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

So no disconfirmation of Darwinism – explicitly – makes any difference at all if those who get a salary off it don’t dispute it? That is what the fellow seems to be saying.
Missed this part I guess:
They also publish that evidence openly so that anyone can see it if they’ve a mind.
goodusername_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Whether it's Global Warming or Darwinism, its proponents never acknowledge the "...good evidence…" AGAINST it. It is always framed as religion versus science. It is never, "let's compare the pros and cons and see which is the best explanation." No, can't have that. It must always be, "you disagree because of your religion but science trumps religion so I'm right and you're wrong." Never mind that the science more readily supports a designer and there is good evidence that warming is not a threat to mankind. I am never sure if is because they are just ignorant of the evidence or if they really are so dumb as to believe that "unbelief" is just a religious position. Maybe that just helps them sleep at night but I've given up trying to figure it out. I just respond that the evidence is on my side and let them try to shoot holes in the proposition.Florabama_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Evolution Darwin style is the best just so stories for feeble people.Andre_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

I commented on the original thread ... but also, I think it's right to point out that most people cannot test and scientifically evaluate every claim for evolution. So the theory is accepted on a basis of trust. An atheistic bias causes many people to accept evolutionary theory even when they can't explain what the theory is and they don't know what the evidence actually shows.Silver Asiatic_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply