Intelligent Design

Predict “Darwin’s doom” timeline and win free stuff

Spread the love

The contest was judged here April 16, 2011.

Here, a commenter asked

O’Leary,As you’ve obviously got your finger on the pulse of the lay of the land and people trust and know you sufficiently well to confide in you such thoughts I wonder if you’d care to proffer a guess as to the time-line for the fall of Darwinism, based on the relative frequency of such encounters with Darwin-doubters??

Commenter JemimaRacktouey is too kind; most people who talk to me just want to bend a pliable ear, and in my trade one learns to just listen.

But she has a really good idea there, so I thought, let’s throw it open: What do you see as the timeline for Darwinism to be replaced by a more inclusive theory of evolution? If ever. And if not, why not?

As it happens, I still have Privileged Planet and Expelled DVDs, courtesy the producers, and will award one to anyone whose ideas interest me who is willing to supply a mailing address.

I’m not looking for agreement with my own ideas which are purposely not mentioned here. I’ll do that later when winners are announced, next Saturday.

I am looking for  interesting ideas,period.

Comments are now closed, for judging.  – d.

32 Replies to “Predict “Darwin’s doom” timeline and win free stuff

  1. 1
    SCheesman says:

    My guess is never (or the end of the world, whichever comes first).

    For materialists, there are few other options.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    This may seem a bit flippant, but I predict that strict neo-Darwinism will go out of ‘fashion’, with the ‘scientific elite’, when they finally admit that God is God and they are not. As it sits now, they simply will not allow any teleology whatsoever into the origins question, no matter how benign, since allowing any purpose into life, no matter how small, ‘hints’ of God. Given the overwhelmingly rebellious attitude towards anything to do with God, from the many neo-Darwinists I have encountered, it seems nothing short of them coming to the end of themselves, perhaps coming to an end both materially and spiritually, will bring about this change to their heart.,,, It must be fully grasped that this ‘theory’ is unlike any other theory ever in the history of science, for neo-Darwinism truly had no compelling scientific evidence whatsoever for such widespread acceptance in the first place (particularly with the fact that no species has ever been transmuted into another species!). Thus, since neo-Darwinism to this day has no compelling evidence, this is actually a scientific theory that was born out, and nurtured, by the rebellious nature on man’s own heart towards God. This ‘rebellious nature’ is in fact the only reason why neo-Darwinism survives to this day. Thus only a widespread change in man’s heart towards God, especially a change of heart by those in positions of ‘scientific power’ who hate the God, though they claim they don’t believe in Him, will bring about the demise of neo-Darwinism.,,, This may seem extremely pessimistic, but it is my prediction and I’m sticking by it.

    ——–

    notes on falsification of neo-Darwinism;

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html

    This following study adds to Alain Aspect’s work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the ‘hidden variable’ argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous ‘spooky action at a distance’ found in quantum mechanics.

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology, for how can the quantum entanglement effect in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism’s inability to explain this ‘transcendent quantum effect’ adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a ‘eternal soul’ for man that lives past the death of the body.

    Further notes:

    The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

  3. 3
    Sonfaro says:

    Aww, I gotta post my prediction again?

    Decades. Once the old guard of Neo-Darwanism pass on there’ll be some newer form to replace it that will equally tick of creationists but will at least make more sense.

    – Sonfaro

  4. 4
    QuiteID says:

    ““So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.” Matthew 24: 26-8.

  5. 5
    Heinrich says:

    What do you see as the timeline for Darwinism to be replaced by a more inclusive theory of evolution? If ever. And if not, why not?

    That happened in the 1920s/30s, when Darwinism was replace by neo-Darwinism. I guess it happened again in the 60s and 70s, with neutral evolution coming to the fore, as well as expanded ideas about the levels at which selection happens.

    I don’t get the impression it’s happening now, although DNA technology is changing the subject: it’s more adding (pathetic?) levels of detail.

    Will the current paradigm be replaced? Alas I’m not far-sighted enough to see. I’m scpetical that ID will have a big influence, but what I would say is that ID will have to move beyond critiquing current evolutionary biology, and start to provide its own answers, and evidence for them (as opposed to evidence against other answers). I’m still hopeful that we’ll see some ID researchers try to do this.

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    O’Leary, good question.

    In my opinion, the only thing that has a good chance of destroying Darwinism is genetic science. Darwinian evolution predicts that the tree of life consists of strictly nested hierarchies. This is relatively easy to falsify, that is, if the some benefactor is willing to put sufficient funds into the research.

    I predict that non-nested hierarchies (multiple inheritance of entire identical genes in distant branches of the tree of life) will be discovered. A good place to start is in the genomes of echolocating bats and toothed whales. This finding will destroy Darwinism and it can happen within the next five years or so if the ID side is willing to put their money where their mouths are.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    This sort of goes with my ‘coming to the end of themselves’ comment at post #2;

    God of the Broken – video
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7ZLL6WNX

  8. 8
    Muramasa says:

    Didn’t Dr. Dembski predict the demise of Darwinism about 10 years ago? How did that turn out?

  9. 9
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Muramasa,
    I believe you may be thinking of this quote:

    “In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead.”

    Touchstone Magazine, 2004.

  10. 10
    Bantay says:

    5 years –
    Significant scientific discoveries will enhance a relatively new scientific paradigm we know today as “ID” – As additional discoveries buttress a design framework from which new scientific discoveries can be predicted, we will see more scientists and materialists distance themselves from Darwinism (like Marulis and Fodor).

    10 Years –
    Significant numbers of academicians from biologists to astronomers, philosophers to office secretaries, will be talking about a design framework for the future of their scientific fields in a professional setting, without fear of legal reprisals.

    20 years –
    Someone will win a landmark legal case that will have a result of ID being shown to be good science, not religion. Scientists who are on the anti-ID side will be expelled from their jobs, suffer public embarrassment for their fearmongering (Barbara?) and will be regretting that they didn’t break ranks while the going was good. Also in 10 years, a movie will be made about the Dover trial and there will be renewed controversy when the credits roll “ACLU Document”

    40 Years –
    More than 50% of the Big Academy will be non-materialists and agnostics, with atheism showing a steady decline from it’s already lowly numbers to an even lesser significance. The beginnings of post-Darwinist history revisionism will rear its ugly head, with surviving Darwinist hold-outs fighting amongst themselves over who claimed what fossil was a precursor to man (but strangely will forget that none of them were).

    60 Years – Darwinism will be relegated to a small, obscure paragraph in science text books, probably as a footnote. All of today’s living fundamentalist Darwinists will be dead, their Machiavellianism and unscientific fearmongering and back-pats a thing of the past. Meanwhile, the exciting world of science will be renewed with advances in technology that will enable scientists to reverse engineer the parts in the cell itself, helping to elucidate secrets of its design previously unknown. On the global design front, advances in technology will reveal orders of magnitude greater levels of design in the universe.

  11. 11
    Sonfaro says:

    61 years

    The world ends.

    o.O

    – Sonfaro

  12. 12
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Bantay,

    Very optimistic predictions there. Not that I’m disagreeing at all.

    Within the whole scheme will be what to do with Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Gonzalez, et al.

    I think we’ll hear proclamations such as:

    Former Darwinist: “Well we never really disagreed with Dembski, we simply demanded more rigor in his argument. He produced it, and we were pleased.”

    Another former Darwinist: “So Behe was right; so what. We knew it all along.”

    Another former Darwinist: “Well Meyer’s book was just too dense and I couldn’t get through it. If I had known then what I know now, I would never have lampooned it on Amazon.”

    Yet another former Darwinist: “The current thinking is what neoDarwinism was leading too. The original ID proponents jumped the gun too soon and without evidence, due to their religious biases, and we demonstrated this as the case. Remember Dover? Oh never mind.”

  13. 13
    bowler says:

    Here’s what William Dembski predicted…

    ” In the next five years, molecular Darwinism – the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level – will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.

    I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years.”

    Touchstone magazine, 2004.

  14. 14
    nullasalus says:

    What do you see as the timeline for Darwinism to be replaced by a more inclusive theory of evolution? If ever. And if not, why not?

    Darwinism is not going to be replaced by a more inclusive theory, because “Darwinism” will be the label slapped on to any evolutionary theory that gains popularity. That word has become far too important to ever be sacrificed – so the response has been to make it elastic to the point of meaninglessness.

  15. 15
    QuestionMark says:

    The religion Darwinism, which is survival of the fittest, will continue to prevail as long as it appeals to man’s pride. To think that nature blessed me as a rational animal and I have continued to dominate! And I being the descendant of those who continue to dominate is so seductive that it was the vehicle of revolution in China, and one may argue previously also in Germany.

  16. 16
    Heinrich says:

    I predict that non-nested hierarchies (multiple inheritance of entire identical genes in distant branches of the tree of life) will be discovered. A good place to start is in the genomes of echolocating bats and toothed whales

    Why these two groups? Do they both show the same anatomical and physiological mechanisms of echolocation?

  17. 17
    grannyape92 says:

    My prediction is here!

  18. 18
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Denyse,

    My prediction for the future of Darwinism, based on the ideas of J. Richard Gott III, is that there’s a 50% chance that it will last for somewhere between 1/3 to 3 times as many years as it has already. Darwinism is 150 years old, so that means we can be 50% sure it will die out within the next 50 to 450 years. Let’s split the difference and say 250 years: that means we can look forward to its demise in about 2260.

    Here’s the idea behind J. Richard Gott’s reasoning, in his own words:

    In 1969, after graduating from Harvard but before starting further study in astro-physics at Princeton University, I took a summer holiday in Europe and visited the Berlin Wall. It was the height of the Cold War, and the wall was then eight years old. Standing in it ominous shadow, I began to wonder how long it would last. Having no special knowledge of East-West relations, I hadn’t much to go on. But I hit on a curious way to estimate the wall’s likely lifetime knowing only its age.

    I reasoned, first of all, that there was nothing special about my visit. That is, I didn’t come to see the wall being erected or demolished–I just happened to have a holiday, and came to stand there at some random moment during the wall’s existence. So, I thought, there was a 50 per cent chance that I was seeing the wall during the middle two quarters of its lifetime (see Diagram, below). If I was at the beginning of this interval, then one-quarter of the wall’s life had passed and three-quarters remained. On the other hand, if I was at the end of of this interval, then three-quarters had passed and only one-quarter lay in the future. In this way I reckoned that there was a 50 per cent chance the wall would last from 1/3 to 3 times as long as it had already.

    Before leaving the wall, I predicted to a friend, that it would with 50 per cent likelihood, last more than two and two-thirds years but less than 24. I then returned from holiday and went on to other things. But my prediction, and the peculiar line of reasoning that lay behind it, stayed with me. Twenty years later, in November 1989 the Berlin Wall cam down–unexpectedly, but in line with my prediction.

    Readers can view the rest of the article .

    Notice that when the Berlin Wall finally came down, it was an unexpected event. Darwinism’s demise will probably be for an unexpected reason, as well.

  19. 19
    vjtorley says:

    The link to the article by J. Richard Gott III is here: http://pthbb.org/manual/services/grim/ . Sorry.

  20. 20
    Mapou says:

    Heinrich:

    Mapou: I predict that non-nested hierarchies (multiple inheritance of entire identical genes in distant branches of the tree of life) will be discovered. A good place to start is in the genomes of echolocating bats and toothed whales

    Heinrich: Why these two groups? Do they both show the same anatomical and physiological mechanisms of echolocation?

    The answer is yes. Furthermore, genetic studies have already found identical amino acid chains in areas of the prestin gene known to be associated with heightened sensitivity to high frequency sounds in mammals.

    This alone completely falsifies Darwinian evolution, in my opinion, because the likelihood of these identical sequences appearing at their precise locations in the same gene is astronomically low. However, the Darwinian evolutionists have attributed it to evolutionary convergence. They get away with this in-your-face crackpottery because they create the rules in this battle.

    My hypothesis is that echolocation is a lot more complex than having greater sensitivity to high frequency sounds. It’s a sure bet that there are other identical sequences, even entire genes, associated with it. I predict that they will be found and, when that happens, the Darwinists will not be able to claim convergence (or some other cockamamie excuse) as an explanation.

    In conclusion, let me add that whoever designed the species on this planet must have used the old tried and tested intelligent design strategy known as multiple inheritance. Why reinvent the wheel, right? Darwinian evolution is doomed.

  21. 21
    CannuckianYankee says:

    VJ,

    I thought the article was interesting, but their prediction was really off on the Torries staying in power – their prediction allowed them several hundred more years; so it’s not exactly precise as as a prediction device.

    With that in mind, since the prediction allowed that they could stay in power for a few hundred more years, and given that they actually were in power for only 3.5 more years, we can allow a much earlier demise for Darwinism on the same premise. I give it 20 years at the most.

  22. 22

    VJ,
    I liked your estimate, but it is both way too broad, and way too conservative. Of course it will be the unexpected that brings down the wall and Darwinism, because if it were expected, the watchman would have been ready, and the NCSE would have been primed.

    But what no one seems to recognize, is that it is already happened–Darwinism stopped being a viable theory, not when it could no longer work (becuase it never could) but when something else replaced it.

    The discovery announced last month (but made 11 years ago) that fossils exist on comets, means that we no longer need to explain evolution as “change in situ” for we can always have “change by transport”. That is, your old retired neighbors don’t evolve into a family with kids, they move out and another family moves in. The changes on planet Earth is much easier to explain if it is “aliens” who bring about the oxygen metabolism, the Cambrian explosion, the flowering plants. This is what the comet fossils imply.

    And when the Mars Science Lab finds the same thing on Mars (which we have known since 1976 Viking), and then the Europa probe finds it on Jupiter’s Moons, or Enceladus is found to have life at Saturn, the cat is out of the bag. There will be a scramble to explain it as life originating at Earth, but in the end, the consensus will admit life exists all over the Solar system. I think this will sweep through all biologists younger than 45. At this point, insisting on Evolution only on Earth will date a scientist as only slightly less ancient than the dinosaurs. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, theories don’t die, the scientists who promote them do.

    So when will this conversion experience occur, when will everyone trace “the beginning of the end” to this important event?

    I’d like to think it was the paper that came out in the Journal of Cosmology, but there’s going to be an even more exciting one coming out in a few months, not to mention a conference Aug 21 in San Diego. We have Mars Science Lab launched in a year or two, and Europa mission sometime in the next decade. So if microfossils aren’t enough, Mars is next. If Mars isn’t enough, Jupiter and Saturn are next. But I don’t think it will take that long. I think this is the year. (But of course, my success at prediction is a perfect reason to multiple by 3 and add 2.)

  23. 23
    markf says:

    #18 vj

    Your argument applies equally to ID. That movement began about 25 years ago – so there is a 50% chance that ID will last between 8 and 75 years.

  24. 24
    Heinrich says:

    markf – ID has been traced back 200 years, to Paley’s Natural theology. So we might have another 600 years of UD!

  25. 25
    snelldl says:

    1860

  26. 26
    Petrushka says:

    My hypothesis is that echolocation is a lot more complex than having greater sensitivity to high frequency sounds. It’s a sure bet that there are other identical sequences, even entire genes, associated with it. I predict that they will be found and, when that happens, the Darwinists will not be able to claim convergence (or some other cockamamie excuse) as an explanation.

    That’s a decent hypothesis in that it can and probably will be tested. that’s the kind of thing mainstream biologists do all the time.

  27. 27
    vjtorley says:

    Robert Sheldon (#22)

    I was interested to read about to the forthcoming Mars Science Lab and Europa missions. When Darwinism eventually does fall, it will be because of something “out of left field” like this. By the way, are you proposing that the seeds of flowering plants can be found in outer space, or am I mis-reading you?

  28. 28
    vjtorley says:

    markf (#23)

    If I had no other information about Darwinism and ID theory apart from their respective longevities, then I suppose it would be rational to expect the former theory to outlast the latter. However, having examined the arguments for both positions, I find the latter much more intellectually credible as an account of life than the former, and I think that most fair-minded people will eventually conclude likewise. Please notice that I said “eventually.” I’m not holding my breath.

  29. 29
    Heinrich says:

    Heinrich: Why these two groups? Do they both show the same anatomical and physiological mechanisms of echolocation?

    The answer is yes. Furthermore, genetic studies have already found identical amino acid chains in areas of the prestin gene known to be associated with heightened sensitivity to high frequency sounds in mammals.

    So we have convergent evolution in one gene, and only at a few sites in the gene (pdf). That’s selection for you.

    But if, as you claim, bats use the same mechanism of echolocation as dolphins, where is the melon in the bat? To quote Ed Yong, in the article you link to:

    After all, bats and toothed whales echolocate very differently. Bats create their sonar pulses using their voicebox while whales pass air through their nasal bones. Bats send their calls through air and whales send their through water.

  30. 30
    Mapou says:

    Heinrich:

    So we have convergent evolution in one gene, and only at a few sites in the gene (pdf). That’s selection for you.

    Yes, of course. But the likelihood of identical amino acid sequences appearing at the same precise sites in the prestin gene of both bats and whales is so low that we should conclude that the selection was not done by random natural processes. Genetic engineering was certainly involved.

    Obviously, this damning evidence is not enough for Darwinian evolutionists to throw in the towel; their cries of “evolutionary convergence” are enough to keep them in the fight. However, if one or more entire identical gene is discovered in bats and whales and shown to be essential to echolocation, the Darwinists will no longer have a leg to stand on and the fight will be over.

    Heinrich: But if, as you claim, bats use the same mechanism of echolocation as dolphins, where is the melon in the bat? To quote Ed Yong, in the article you link to:

    After all, bats and toothed whales echolocate very differently. Bats create their sonar pulses using their voicebox while whales pass air through their nasal bones. Bats send their calls through air and whales send their through water.

    Yes, the sensory and motor mechanisms are different but this is not where most of the complexity of echolocation is. Most of the complexity resides in the neural subsystem that processes the complex temporal signatures of the high frequency signals in order to retrieve useful location information.

    Besides, dolphins do use their echolocation ability both in and out of water. The principle is the same.

  31. 31
    Heinrich says:

    But the likelihood of identical amino acid sequences appearing at the same precise sites in the prestin gene of both bats and whales is so low that we should conclude that the selection was not done by random natural processes.

    Do you have a link to the calculations? It’s not immediately obvious to me that this is the case.

    However, if one or more entire identical gene is discovered in bats and whales and shown to be essential to echolocation

    Were the genes identical? I thought they were different, but there were sites in the gene that showed convergence.

    Yes, the sensory and motor mechanisms are different but this is not where most of the complexity of echolocation is. Most of the complexity resides in the neural subsystem that processes the complex temporal signatures of the high frequency signals in order to retrieve useful location information.

    Are the rest of the systems the same? Thus far you only seem to have a few amino acid positions in one gene.

  32. 32

    #28 vj
    Seeds are great for spreading life in similar environments, but not for alien environments. Dandelion seeds may blow out on the ocean, but they don’t grow on the ocean floor.

    The energetic cost of getting seeds into space is pretty high, and while the planet of Le Petit Prince may put seeds into space, ours can’t.

    On the other hand, it is the information, not the supporting structure that is needed to “seed” space. Cyanobacteria are perfect for growing on comets–they can make their own food from sunlight, water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, something no other critter can do. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, relies on some previous life form to process food for them.

    So the best carrier for information is not seeds, but cyanobacteria. And when we examine the DNA of cyanobacteria (or the phage viruses that piggy-back on them) what do we discover? Lots of genes that have absolutely nothing to do with bacteria or viruses, but encode random bits of eukaryotic information.

    The information for flowering plants, that so transformed Earth, probably came as a hitchhiker on a cyanobacteria on a comet.

Comments are closed.