Darwinian Debating Device #10: “The Double Standard”

_{Barry Arrington

October 17, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In this post Dr. Torley engages in a philosophical discussion about the nature of God. In the comment thread we have Graham2 saying:

This site lost any claim to the practice of impartial science long long ago.

And william spearshake says:

UD, which purports to be in support of the “science” of ID, supposedly not religiously based, loses what little credibility it has when it’s moderator continues to allow articles that are purely religious.

It should be noted for the record that Dr. Torley did not start this discussion. He was responding to a post by one of the world’s most prominent materialist atheists, Jerry Coyne.

I did a quick check through the comment thread to Dr. Coyne’s post, and I did not see anything from Graham2 or william about how Coyne’s site could no longer be considered a credible source of information about evolutionary science. Maybe I missed it. If so, I am sure Graham2 or william will point it out. I won’t be holding my breath.

In summary, when atheist Coyne talks about religious issues, he gets a free pass, but when UD responds to Coyne’s post we are accused of losing our scientific credibility. There’s a double standard for you.

Here’s a clue for Graham2 and william. Religion and evolution have been inextricably intertwined since at least Origin of Species, which is an intensely and self-consciously religious text at its very core.

Comments

phoodoo@9 wrote
And as most people probably know, Coyne (ditto PZ Myers) doesn’t allow ANY opposing viewpoints on his fascist blog. Its obvious why he does that, because he is simply incapable of articulately defending any of his beliefs to real scrutiny. He is an academic coward.
"As most people probably know" --- This is called an argumentum ad populum, an appeal to common belief. "doesn’t allow ANY opposing viewpoints" --- Unsupported allegation. Is your viewpoint an opposing one? If so, then the statement is false. "on his fascist blog." --- ad hominem attack. What does a socialist political system have to do with biology? "Its[sic] obvious that" --- Browbeating. "why he does that" --- Genetic fallacy. "incapable of articulately defending" --- Unsupported allegation. "He is an academic coward." --- ad hominem attack. -QQuerius_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Jeeeez, dissenting comments have a really short life span!Graham2_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

Spearshake, "As you know, I don’t agree with ID, but that really isn’t the point. UD spends most of its time highlighting any disagreement amongst evolution researchers, which is a sign of a healthy science, rather than highlighting research that specifically supports ID. " I don't think this is a credible statement. What do you mean by research that specifically supports ID? Science research is just that, its research to find the truth. If it points towards ID then that is where it points. UD constantly highlights research which points that way, as well as showing how much of biology science evolutionists get wrong. Disagreement is healthy, but that is not what most evolutionist preach. In fact they do just the opposite, they only want to allow information which is part of their inside club-dissent is not an option within the major institutions of science in America. If you don't agree with the paradigm of random evolution, you are going to be constantly fighting an uphill battle to maintain a career. What goes on in the dirty world of academia in the biological sciences is downright scandalous. The list of egregious attempts to stifle healthy disagreement in evolution is so long and nefarious that one couldn't even begin to list them all here. Evolution science in academia is a cabal. You are free to disagree, as long as you really don't disagree with Darwinism.phoodoo_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Phoodoo, I am not here to defend Coyne or Meyers. To be honest, I have never been on their sites. As you know, I don't agree with ID, but that really isn't the point. UD spends most of its time highlighting any disagreement amongst evolution researchers, which is a sign of a healthy science, rather than highlighting research that specifically supports ID. With regard to Barry's current OP, I take offence to him misquoting me to make a point. If my entire comment can't be rebutted then he is misrepresenting the facts by only using a part of my comment. As I have mentioned before, there is a word for this.william spearshake_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

And as most people probably know, Coyne (ditto PZ Myers) doesn't allow ANY opposing viewpoints on his fascist blog. Its obvious why he does that, because he is simply incapable of articulately defending any of his beliefs to real scrutiny. He is an academic coward.phoodoo_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

william spearshake, I have to disagree with you just a little here. I think it is ridiculous to talk about God's ethics on a site about ID, however I think it is not an issue about moderation as much as it is about confusion. Many things that are off topic don't get deleted here. Moderation doesn't really claim to delete all off topic statements I don't think, though I guess one could argue they could consider that. Of course Jerry Coyne's blog is not about science, of course it is just pure propaganda nonsense that shouldn't be taken seriously, and should not even be quoted here in my opinion-because the guy is just so dishonest and dishonorable. So the question becomes, when UD has topics that are not related to ID, should they dismiss them because they are off topic? Yes, I think so. Because it simply confuses the issue. Jerry Coynes beliefs are Jerry Coynes beliefs alone. They have nothing to do with science. ID is a scientific endeavor, which doesn't rely on any persons particular beliefs. But I do agree with Spearshake that it does make the site look less serious and credible with such discussions.phoodoo_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, What's disturbing to me is the cherry picking and force fitting of data to make it conform to a set of 19th--century speculations called Darwinistic evolution. Hardly a week goes by without some discovery that results in headlines about how surprised scientists are and how they'll have to revise their theories. Living fossils, earlier than expected, DNA analysis reveals, etc. Whatever Darwinism is, it's certainly not science. -QQuerius_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Barry, I guess I forgot to mention the tactic of UD to quote mine out of context. Here is what you quoted from me: "UD, which purports to be in support of the “science” of ID, supposedly not religiously based, loses what little credibility it has when it’s moderator continues to allow articles that are purely religious." Here is what I actually said: Phoodoo: “So can you blame people for assuming that intelligent design is a religious belief, when websites that purport to serve the community spend so much talking about bible passages, and what God must be like? “ I am an atheist/evolutionist/materialist, but I think that you are correct here. UD, which purports to be in support of the “science” of ID, supposedly not religiously based, loses what little credibility it has when it’s moderator continues to allow articles that are purely religious. It also loses credibility when it allows anything under its umbrella, from YEC to evolution lite. As you can see, I was responding to another comment, not the OP. but I guess that taking another person's words completely out of context is acceptable, ethical and mora as long as it supports your opinion.william spearshake_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Evidence: Categories on UD Ratio of PAGES on atheism vs posts on biophysics? Survey says......REC_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

The biggest double standard of all is that, as Dr. Nelson pointed out today, 'evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going',,,
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/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek
supplemental notes:
Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X
Since Darwin's book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the ‘scientific’ clergy shunned it:
“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species
In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can:
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) – 148,413 total http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/
Contrary to what Dr. Avise may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism, but is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims!!!,,, That this fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how blinded Darwinists are to their own theological presuppositions. Especially as it relates in regards to judging the scientific evidence at hand.bornagain77_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

News, of course they did not care. They thought they saw a stick lying on the ground which they could use to beat UD. It turns out the stick was a snake called "double standard," and they got bit when their foolishness was exposed.Barry Arrington_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Religion and evolution have been inextricably intertwined since at least Origin of Species, which is an intensely and self-consciously religious text at its very core.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? HT: ENVMung_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Question, Barry: Did those people not think the things you quote BEFORE Dr. Torley had offered a response to Jerry Coyne? Weren't they just looking for a chance to lob it in? Only they either forgot it was a response or didn't care?News_{September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply