Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thoughts on Christian Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Christian Darwinism is the ultimate oxymoron. Its thesis is: accidentally on purpose, and intentionally designed with no intention or design.

Let’s face it, either the Christian worldview is correct or the Darwinian worldview is correct in this particular debate. The two views are completely, irrevocably, and catastrophically irreconcilable on many levels.

The big problem for Christian Darwinists is that rigorous scientific investigation, empirical evidence, basic combinatorial mathematics, and what is now known from cutting-edge information theory, renders the Darwinian mechanism completely impotent to produce anything but the utterly trivial in the history of life.

I ask myself, Where does this bizarre Christian Darwinism self-contradictory reasoning come from?

I think I have an answer. The Darwinian establishment has been remarkably successful in convincing people that anyone who disagrees with Darwinian orthodoxy has abandoned reason, and this establishment has the power to excommunicate such heretics from respectable company.

Some “Christians” would rather enjoy the company of those who seek to destroy their faith through unreason, rather than to defend it through reason, even when the science and evidence is on their side.

This is a pathetic phenomenon to observe.

Comments
I don’t see
Blindness is nothing to be ashamed of.Mung
April 22, 2011
April
04
Apr
22
22
2011
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST
Mung,
A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent.
I agree, but I don't see what is out of context.Clive Hayden
April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PST
Hi Clive,
A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent. here
Mung
April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PST
Picard Double Facepalm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM&NR=1bornagain77
April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PST
StephenB at 38, First, I respect your self-imposed discipline. It speaks well of you. If you're still reading, though, I will briefly address your point [B] about God directing and undirected process. My science and theology aren't fully developed, but at this point I really don't think God directed the evolutionary process in order to bring Man about. I think He initiated the process through His creation of the universe, and now interacts with Man as a creature capable of responding to Him. Did God create the universe with the intention of interacting with such a creature? Well, if that implies that He wanted to interact with bald bipedal primates, I would say no. But if it simply implies that He was willing to interact with whatever intelligent creature(s) came about through the processes of evolution, I would say yes. As a final thought, consider that there are plenty of Biblical passages that make reference to God's intentions for people "before the foundations of the world." Yet modern embryology clearly teaches us that which people are born (i.e., which sperm interact with which eggs) is an undirected process. So it's not just TE's that have to grapple with God's "direction of an undirected process." Unless there's a theory of Intelligent Insemination I'm not aware of.AMW
April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST
StephenB @ 38: "I agree that my remarks @18 were intemperate and will, therefore, discipline myself by retiring from the thread." Well said. That's probably the same kind of discipline that KL and idcurious exercised in light of their silence to date.paragwinn
April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PST
---"Look, I hold no animosity toward you or anyone else at UD. My whole point is that one should be charitable when discussing the motives of people he disagrees with." I agree that my remarks @18 were intemperate and will, therefore, discipline myself by retiring from the thread. Two benefits will follow: [A] Christian Darwinists will be free to interact with other ID proponents without interruption from me. [B] Christian Darwinists will be free to avoid the central question about how God can direct an undirected process, which is the subject of the thread, and continue evaluting ID, which is not the subject of the thread. What a deal!StephenB
April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PST
Mung,
And anyone in between Jesus will spew out of his mouth, and we know this because of some verse pulled out of it’s context from a letter John wrote to some church in Asia 2000 years ago?
Yes.Clive Hayden
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PST
James Grover, Hello James, Before I comment in a thread I usually read the OP and the comments so I can follow along, and also so that I can see if there's anything that has not been addressed, or may require looking at from a different angle or perspective. With that I found this: "Surely the people here don’t believe objectively that Dembski, Wells, Behe et al are always right, or that all of the criticisms of their ideas are always wrong. You wouldn’t know that to read through this blog, however. To me, that’s really the strongest evidence of ID being a religious construct." Look at it this way: if you want to see science being done under religious constructs, consider how it is done among atheist materialists and also among TE's. I think there's enough of that to go around. We here at ID are for the most part, if not theists; generally agnostic or theistic leaning. That may be a factor in how we think, but it has the same bearing on those among us who do science as on those who do science who are not theists, or who are theists, but believe that God is silent. So let's break down the religious assumptions here: COMMON WORLDVIEW ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SCIENCE LAB: Atheist - "there is no god or gods, so what we're looking at must have begun from natural processes alone. Besides, if a god or gods did exist, he/she/they would not have done it that way." This is a religious assumption that has nothing to do with looking at the evidence and coming to some reasonable conclusions - yet this is a typical atheist apriori. Teleological Darwinist or Theological Evolutionist (whatever is the proper term - I've heard so many): "God exists, but He has left us no physical signature in nature. Nature operates as though God is not needed because God made it appear that way. So when we look at nature we must separate our religious views from the science." Huh? The above is also a religious assumption and has nothing to do with the science whatsoever. Now we get to our typical ID proponents (and no, I do not agree with all of them, but I try to find common ground): "Given the possibility that there might be a designer, what sort of evidence might show or demonstrate design?" Again, some ID friendly people are atheist or agnostic, while the majority are religious. There does not appear to be an apriori assumption made in such an approach. Now let's look at all 3 of these approaches, and you tell me who's making the most assumptions about God and nature here? The atheist Darwinist approaches science right off the bat from the assumption that God does not exist. The TE Darwinist approaches science right off the bat in the same way the atheist Darwinist does without questioning the basic a priori assumptions. While the ID non-Darwinist might be religious, he/she is in a position to look at evidence for what it says. Where it says "no design," the ID non-Darwinist is prepared to let it go and move on to other evidence. However, where there is the appearance of design, to investigate further without assuming that it can't be design seems like the most logical approach (and remember, even atheist Darwinists like Richard Dawkins have suggested that there is an elusive "appearance" of design in nature - it seems like a natural assumption to make). So the ID proponent is actually less likely to form an opinion on the appearance of design from a priori assumptions; because the idea that there might be design is not an assumption, but more of a question. Now I realize that this may be a slight diversion, but you said it, so I felt that it needed addressing. You're asking if we agree with Behe, Wells, Dembski, on everything? Even if we did, what would make that aspect alone evidence of a religious construct within ID? Have you looked at world religions lately? I guess your thinking we treat Dembski (for example) like some sort of guru. Not at all. This is a blog created by Dembski, so I think when we disagree with him, we'd better make sure we have all our thoughts together. So there's that dynamic. I'm certain the same dynamic occurs on PZed's blog as well. And finally, let me ask you this: Do you think it unreasonable to look at something that appears designed, and not ask the question whether it actually is? What makes that a religious approach?CannuckianYankee
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PST
StephenB @13, The same logic doesn’t apply because Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous. O’Leary chooses [C] I choose all of the above What is your choice? None of the above. Look, I hold no animosity toward you or anyone else at UD. My whole point is that one should be charitable when discussing the motives of people he disagrees with. I think it should give you pause that your comment could come straight off a PZ Meyers post if you dropped the word "Darwinists" from it and pluralized "Christian."AMW
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PST
---James Grover: "StephenB in #26 seems to have conceded the point without explaining it, other than through the typical complaining about people who ask pressing questions being big meanies (or “shamefully disingenuous”)." I didn't take your questions seriously because they were uniformed by your own false perceptions. ID scientists disagree all over the place about which methods are best. Do you know anything about the difference between "counterflow" and "irreducible complexity?" Do you know anything about the diverse approaches used by Hugh Ross as opposed to those of William Dembski? I doubt it. More to the point, your questions are irrelevant. You ignore ID science, question the legitimacy of ID's methods, and challenge its conclusions on the grounds that its members are too palsy walsy. What nonsense.StephenB
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PST
James Grover, you do know when you honestly admitted this about quantum entanglement/information being found in molecular biology on a massive scale; “Something about a higher power, I suspect.” ,,that that statement separated you from the Theistic Darwinists, as they are popularly understood, that toe the party line of neo-Darwinism,??? For when you admitted that the higher dimensional 'quantum' evidence pointed to a 'higher power', you in fact conceded that there is something in molecular biology that can be separated from material processes, and can actually be discerned as being from 'God'! For you see James, Theistic Evolutionists claim that what you just did, in discerning the action of a 'Higher Power' is impossible!bornagain77
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST
James Grover and StephenB, here is a inspirational video that just came out: The Mountain http://video.yahoo.com/editorspicks-12135647/featured-24306389/the-mountain-24960678.html James Grover, thanks for being honest to the evidence.bornagain77
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PST
---James Grover: "I belong to “class of people” to which that statement was directed; and I said that you indirectly referred to me (as one of the class) as “irredeemably stupid.” What’s so hard to understand?" Well, I can't be held accountable for what class you belong to until you tell me. As a tribute to our nascent relationship, however, I will try to find another way to characterize someone who thinks that God can direct an undirected process. Let's see, how about, "irrational?" Is that civil enough?StephenB
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PST
Matteo:
ID advocates have been waiting for more than fifteen years to hear any sort of rational criticism from folks who’ve taken the trouble to accurately represent and honestly address ID arguments.
Matteo, you seem to have missed the point along with StephenB. My question had nothing to do with criticism of ID from without; I was asking why there's never any criticism from within. StephenB in #26 seems to have conceded the point without explaining it, other than through the typical complaining about people who ask pressing questions being big meanies (or "shamefully disingenuous").James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PST
Boy, I have to get better at previewing. #27 should say "Something about a higher power, I suspect."James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST
StephenB, I think I'm through with you now. I don't know why you'd want to sustain an intellectual discussion with one of the irredeemably stupid class.James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PST
BA77:
Yeah James I know that, but HOW DID HE DO IT?
I don't presume to know. Something about a "higher power," is suspect.James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST
---James Grover: "Don’t you consider this odd? How can science be done in the absence of substantive disagreement or constant, unwavering acquiescence?" I think that being pelted from all sides, slandered by the press, expelled from the academic community, and abused by the court system will suffice for the requisite disagreement.StephenB
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PST
StephenB, you seem to be having trouble keeping up, or are just continually dodging the question(s). You said that "... Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous… I choose all of the above" I belong to "class of people" to which that statement was directed; and I said that you indirectly referred to me (as one of the class) as "irredeemably stupid." What's so hard to understand?James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PST
Yeah James I know that, but HOW DID HE DO IT? notes; James Grover, also of late, in conjunction with this 'higher dimensional' component being found within molecular biology on such a massive scale, I've been fascinated by the fact that the 3-Dimensional world folds and collapses into a tunnel shape as the higher dimension of the speed of light is approached: Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the preceding video, when the 3-Dimensional world 'folds and collapses' into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' reported in very many Near Death Experiences: The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – view http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ As well James, please note how our 3-Dimensional reality is found to be based on 'higher dimensional mathematics; The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ (Of note; the 'higher dimensional' square root of negative one is necessary for understanding quantum mechanics Schrodinger's equation) ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. - Granville Sewell (of note: higher dimensional geometry was necessary to develop General Relativity) Bernhard Riemann Excerpt: For his Habiltationsvortrag Riemann proposed three topics, and against his expectations Gauss chose the one on geometry. Riemann's lecture, "On the hypotheses that lie at the foundation of geometry" was given on June 10, 1854. This extraordinary work introduced (what is now called) an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold and its curvature tensor. It also, prophetically, discussed the relation of this mathematical space to actual space. Riemann's vision was realized by Einstein's general theory of relativity sixty years later. http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/riemann.html 4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity - Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ Yet James, as you probably well know, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are notoriously difficult to 'unify'; notes; I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time 'unifying' into a 'theory of everything'.(Einstein, Penrose). Yet, the unification, into a 'theory of everything', between what is in essence the 'infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics' and the 'finite materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity' seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfgbornagain77
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST
Moreover James Grover, if you are a neo-Darwinist, how can you possible explain quantum entanglement/information being found in molecular biology, on a massive scale, since quantum entanglement/information falsified local realism/materialism as its own causation in the first place??? 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 on such a massive scale, 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/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.htmlbornagain77
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PST
---James Grover: "Leaving aside the fact that you seem to be using “Darwinists” to construct a tautological point, I’m pretty sure I asked a civil question and I’m greeted by being called, indirectly, “irredeemably stupid.” You didn't get greeted by any such thing. That comment was about a class of people and it was a response to a response concerning someone else's comment. It had nothing to do with you unless you are two people posting as one.StephenB
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PST
James Grover, ID comes in for criticism constantly. I have personally witnessed hundreds of 'criticisms on these very boards. Perhaps you are merely surprised that dogmatic atheists are not given free run of these boards and this is what you find 'out-of-place?!? Do you have any particular criticism you would like to place? As to yourself though, do you hold to neo-Darwinism?? i.e. Are you materialistic atheist? If so to what foundation do you hold now that materialism is formally, and empirically, falsified? notes; Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm 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/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.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/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/postsbornagain77
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PST
My point was that unlike “conventional” science, for want of a better term, ID science doesn’t seem to have any blind alleys. ID scientists always seem to be right on the first try, in other words.
Au contraire. ID advocates have been waiting for more than fifteen years to hear any sort of rational criticism from folks who've taken the trouble to accurately represent and honestly address ID arguments. Waiting...waiting...waiting...Matteo
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PST
Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous... I choose all of the above
Leaving aside the fact that you seem to be using "Darwinists" to construct a tautological point, I'm pretty sure I asked a civil question and I'm greeted by being called, indirectly, "irredeemably stupid." Another unusual thing I notice about IDers, especially here, is that while they're pretty quick to complain about tone (usually rather than answering pointed questions), they don't have much trouble slinging insults themselves. You lose teh interwebs, my friend.James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PST
O’Leary @ 6: ---"It’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age when the science elite is dominated by atheists, proponents of any Christian view of evolution that could never be in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage. AMW in response: "By the same logic, it’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age (and a country) that the bulk of the general populace are theists who doubt the theory of evolution, the proponents of any Christian view of biology that is firmly in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage. Especially when those proponents overwhelmingly publish in the popular press." The same logic doesn't apply because Christian Darwinists subscribe to a manifestly irrational position. There are only three ways to explain it: [A] They are willfully misinformed [B] They are irredeemably stupid or [C] They are shamefully disingenuous. O'Leary chooses [C] I choose all of the above What is your choice?StephenB
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PST
Ack--that last sentence in #15 should say "...in the absence of substantive disagreement or in a state of constant, unwavering acquiescence?"James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PST
StephenB:
Actually, we ID proponents welcome any constructive criticism from informed critics. The problem is not our unwillingness to accept the criticism but our critics’ unwillingness to become informed.
My point was that unlike "conventional" science, for want of a better term, ID science doesn't seem to have any blind alleys. ID scientists always seem to be right on the first try, in other words. I noted that there never seems to be any substantive criticism of ID hypotheses from pro-ID observers, and your response seems to be that it's because there's never any constructive criticism and there aren't any informed critics. But that wasn't my point, of course. I'm wondering why there's never any informed criticism from ID supporters. There are some who regularly post comments here that run to thousands of words, but never in any of those that I've seen is there a hint of criticism, even just in passing. Don't you consider this odd? How can science be done in the absence of substantive disagreement or constant, unwavering acquiescence?James Grover
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST
Is this a case of drawing a distinction between evolution and Darwinism ? The Catholic Church,not concerned with social advantage ,recognizes that evolution isn't in conflict with it's dogma. It seems they believe you can be both.velikovskys
April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply