Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

WD400 Doubles Down on Dobzhansky’s Maxim

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers may recall that in a recent post I quoted molecular biologist wd400 undermining Theodosius Dobzhansky’s silly maxim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” when he asserted that a lot of molecular biologists, including world-famous leader of the human genome project Francis Collins, “don’t understand much about evolution.”

I noted that it follows as a matter of simple logic that Dobzhansky was wrong if one of the world’s leading biologists can do his job perfectly well without even understanding evolution, far less depending on it to make sense of everything.

Today wd400 doubled down when he asserted that not only does Collins not understand evolution, but in fact he is dead wrong about key aspects of the theory, such as junk DNA, HGT and gene counts.

Simple logic again:  One can be dead wrong about key aspects of modern evolutionary theory and still lead to a successful conclusion one of greatest undertakings in applied biology in the history of the world.

That swirling sound you hear is Dobzhansky’s maxim circling the drain.

UPDATE:

I pointed out to wd400 that if Collins does not understand evolution and in fact is dead wrong about key aspects of the theory, Dobzhansky’s maxim implies that Collins can’t “make sense” of the human genome, even though he was the head of the human genome project.

Frankly, I expected wd400 to back down in the face of this reductio ad absurdum argument.  He did not.  He tripled down on his claim and said: “I also very much doubt Collins himself would say the genome ‘makes sense’ to him.”

Yet again we have an example of someone willing to sacrifice rationality itself for the sake of their creation myth.  wd400 please do us all a favor.  Never poke fun at those religious “fundies.”  It would be hypocritical.

 

Comments
At about the 1 hour mark of the video, which I have ‘current time’ linked here:
Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg – (1 hour mark) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84&feature=player_detailpage#t=3641s
In the preceding debate Dr Craig states that atheist Dr. Rosenberg blurs together Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge and, Metaphysical Naturalism, which holds that only physical things exist. As to, Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge, Dr. Craig states it is a false theory of knowledge since,,,
a). it is overly restrictive and b) it is self refuting
Moreover Dr Craig states, epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism. In fact, Dr. Craig stated that a Epistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points: (8 points which, by the way, Dr. Craig pulled from Dr. Rosenburg's own book on atheism. In other words, Dr. Craig used Dr. Rosenburg's own 8 conclusions about atheism, which Dr Rosenburg had reasoned out himself in his book, against him in the debate:
1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of the 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again. (…) So, the fiction of the enduring self is almost certainly a side effect of a highly effective way of keeping the human body out of harm’s way. It is a by-product of whatever selected for bodies—human and nonhuman—to take pains now that make things better for themselves later. For a long time now, Mother Nature has been filtering for bodies to postpone consumption in the present as investment for the body’s future. It looks a lot like planning. Even squirrels do it, storing nuts for the winter. Does this require each squirrel to have a single real enduring self through time? No. If not, then why take introspection’s word for it when it has a track record of being wrong about things like this, when the self just looks like part of the same illusions and is supposed to have features that physics tells us nothing real can have." - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10
The amazing thing about Dawkins, and other militant atheists, in their claim that God does not really exist, is that, in their denial of the reality of God, also end up denying that they really exist as real ‘persons’. In other words, given atheistic/materialistic premises, there really is no such person named Dawkins, (or Coyne or etc..), there is only a neuronal illusion of a brain who thinks, (if illusions could think), that it is a person named Dawkins https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/richard-dawkins-one-man-circular-firing-squad/#comment-573462
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. to repeat, ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
And in the following article Dawkins admits that it is impossible to live as if his atheistic worldview were true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
bornagain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Box @ 25
Naturalism — purely deterministic or accommodating undetermined events — fails to ground rationality.
Not necessarily. From the entry on ”Naturalism” in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Naturalism First published Thu Feb 22, 2007; substantive revision Tue Sep 15, 2015 The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003). So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.
This is how I understand “naturalism”, as the study of the nature of reality. If a ghost or a god is real then they are part of the natural order of things and, in principle, fit for scientific investigation. If the universe is entirely deterministic then that is natural but if there is an irreducible level of uncertainty then that is also natural.Seversky
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Zach, Naturalism — purely deterministic or accommodating undetermined events — fails to ground rationality.Box
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Box:
1. If naturalism is true, then determinism is true.
If naturalism were true then we wouldn't be here to discuss it. ;) But I digress, could you please state the case supporting your first point? For me naturalism and contingency- contingent serendipity- would go hand-in-hand.Virgil Cain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Box: I give the floor to Van Inwagen, who will explain that undetermined events (also) fail to ground rationality That wasn't the question, but whether naturalism implies determinism. One can be a naturalist and non-determinist, or a supernaturalist and a determinist.Zachriel
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
...many metaphysical naturalists recognize that chance may be a fundamental property of the universe. And they claim ID is a science stopper. Laughs.Mung
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
of related note to post 16:
Heads or Tales - How Evolutionary Theory "Predicts" What It Finds by Casey Luskin – Fall 2014 Excerpt: PZ did make a few substantive points in response to the student and me. He conceded that early vertebrate embryos can "vary greatly" and that "there is wide variation in the status of the embryo."9 But he wasn't going to let those facts challenge his theory, as he countered: "I wish I could get that one thought into these guys' heads: evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities."10 That's intriguing, I thought. Earlier we saw PZ cite the "substantial similarities" between vertebrate embryos in the pharyngula stage as "evidence of common descent." But later, when forced to admit the "wide variation" among embryos, PZ tells us that "evolutionary theory predicts differences" too. Perhaps that's true, but then how can he cite the "similarities" among embryos in the pharyngula stage as evidence for common ancestry? In reality, according to PZ, evolutionary theory predicts whatever it finds. Such logic might help save his theory from falsification in light of all the differences between vertebrate embryos across many stages of development, but it doesn't help construct a robust theory that makes testable predictions. As the old adage says, "the theory that explains anything really explains nothing." http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo30/heads-or-tails.php
bornagain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Zach:
Box: 1. If naturalism is true, then determinism is true.
That doesn’t necessarily follow, and many metaphysical naturalists recognize that chance may be a fundamental property of the universe.
I give the floor to Van Inwagen, who will explain that undetermined events (also) fail to ground rationality:
“Let us look carefully at the consequences of supposing that human behavior is undetermined … Let us suppose that there is a certain current-pulse that is proceeding along one of the neural pathways in Jane’s brain and that it is about to come to a fork. And let us suppose that if it goes to the left, she will make her confession;, and that if it goes to the right, she will remain silent. And let us suppose that it is undetermined which way the pulse goes when it comes to the fork: even an omniscient being with a complete knowledge of the state of Jane’s brain and a complete knowledge of the laws of physics and unlimited powers of calculation could say no more than: ‘The laws and present state of her brain would allow the pulse to go either way; consequently, no prediction of what the pulse will do when it comes to the fork is possible; it might go to the left, and it might go to the right, and that’s all there is to be said.’ Now let us ask: does Jane have any choice about whether the pulse goes to the left or to the right? If we think about this question for a moment, we shall see that it is very hard to see how she could have any choice about that. …There is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other. Or, at least, there is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other and leave the ‘choice’ it makes an undetermined event.” [Van Inwagen]
Box
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
After watching Dr. Raymond Bolin's video on the complexity of the genetic code, http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/the_extreme_complexity_of_genes_dr_raymond_g_bohlin/ I am with Mung (6) "Nothing in Biology makes sense..." WD400 says that Francis Collins doesn't have a good understanding of evolutionary biology. I contend that WD400 is right. However I challenge that WD400 also has no hint of a clue how Dr. Bolin's video could be an accurate description of advanced biology. The one who has the best clue of these experts is Ben Carson who concludes that God did it. Virtually nothing in Biology is simple enough that we mortals can understand it.bFast
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Zany Zach has another zinger "many metaphysical naturalists recognize that chance may be a fundamental property of the universe." Saying that my actions are determined by chance and law is just as deterministic as saying that they are determined solely by law, i.e. 'determined' completely independent of the illusion of 'me':
Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, - Mark Vernon - 18 June 2011 However, "If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. ...the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
bornagain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Box: 1. If naturalism is true, then determinism is true. That doesn't necessarily follow, and many metaphysical naturalists recognize that chance may be a fundamental property of the universe.Zachriel
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
gpuccio, much better. :) Somebody ought to do a cartoon of an evolutionary biologist staring into a crystal ball to come up with these supposed solid scientific 'predictions' of neo-Darwinian evolution that wd400 is so enamored with. But then again, I would not want to insult crystal ball fortune tellers. :) http://elleseconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Fig-2-1-Fortune-teller.jpg Although, per Popper, I don't even consider neo-Darwinian evolution to be science in the first place since it has no falsification criteria
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518
Although Darwinism does not even qualify as a proper science in the first place, wd400, Larry Moran and other Darwinists, ignore that fact and pretend 'fuzzy' predictions , i.e. crystal ball reading, verify Darwinian evolution. wd400 is particularly fond of taking rough, back of the envelope, calculations that have some fuzzy semblance of relating to reality, i.e. crystal ball reading, and then treating those fuzzy numbers as if they were on par with proving General Relativity to another decimal place of precision. Yet contrary to what wd400 wants to believe, the track record of successful scientific predictions from neo-Darwinian evolution is dismal. In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution has far, far, more failed predictions that go to the core of the theory than it has superfluous successful predictions. Failed predictions which should, per Lakatos, rightly disqualify it as a legitimate science. Imre Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism does not have demarcation criteria to test against so as to potentially falsify it,,,
A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a bad theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Here’s the audio: Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio lecture http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3 In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory
And following in Lakatos footsteps, Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of some of the false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the 'core' of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were.
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
bornagain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
WD400: (...) he doesn’t have a deep understanding of evolutionary theory.
Is it possible to have a “deep understanding” of something which is essentially contentless to the extent that it fails to penetrate the surface of rationality? Assuming that we are discussing evolutionary theory which presupposes naturalism, we do know that rationality — let alone a “deep understanding” — is not grounded in principle: 1. If naturalism is true, then determinism is true. 2. If determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born. 3. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature. 4. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore 5. If determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts. Therefore, assuming that rationality requires control, 6. If determinism is true, we are not rational. Conclusion: if naturalism is true there can be no “deep understanding” of evolutionary theory.Box
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
BA: What about: "Nothing in biology makes sense in light of neo-darwinian evolution" ?gpuccio
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
"Dobzhansky’s essay is very good. You should read it."
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 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
I like Egnor's maxim much better since it is based on good science and not on bad theology.
"Nothing in biology makes sense without inference to functional biological information." Michael Egnor - Life Is a "Distinguished Outcome" - November 20, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/life_is_a_disti101061.html
bornagain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
Except Dr. Ben Carson does not think the earth is 6000 years old.Andre
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
If Ben Carson believes that the universe was created 6000 years ago and yet still managed to become the best brain surgeon in the world my hat is off to Ben Carson. Why should I vote for Ben Carson? 1.) He believes things that are obviously false. 2.) He's good at what he does in spite of what he believes.Mung
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
Dr Ben Carson reject unguided evolution and yet he is the best brain surgeon in the world. So when you say people don't understand evolutionary theory which one are you talking about WD400?Andre
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
wd400:
Dobzhansky’s essay is very good. You should read it.
The Bible is very good. You should read it.Mung
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
As with the last time you set this very clever trap of yours, I remind you that I have never claimed that Collins knows nothing about evolution. I also very much doubt Collins himself would say the genome "makes sense" to him. You seem much more interested in catching me in some assumed contradiction that actually understanding what I'm saying. So, just to recap. Collins and others use evolutionary biology to understand genomes. That doesn't mean they have a deep understanding of evoluionary theory. In some cases their misunderstandings have contributed to errors. I, and many other biologists, believe the proportion of junk DNA in the human genome is another example of this. Dobzhansky’s essay is very good. You should read it.wd400
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
wd400, You seem to have missed my questions in 4 when you commented at 5. No prob. I will put them up for you again: 1. Do you admit that Francis Collins is one of the preeminent experts in the world on the human genome? 2. Do you admit that the human genome is a matter “in biology”? 3. Do you admit that the human genome “makes sense” to Francis Collins? 4. Do you admit that Dobzhansky’s maxim is false?Barry Arrington
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Nothing in Biology makes sense...Mung
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
This is kind of ridiculous. People that know a little about the history of the human genome project will know they predicted there would be >100,000 genes. That was not the case. It's much more like Ohno's 1972 estimate of ~30,000 genes (made using genetic load, an evolutionary theory). In the orignal paper describing the human genome the authors concluded that many human genes were the result of HGT from bacteria. This has proved to be wrong. People who know more about evolutionary biology pointed this out at the time. Now Collins (seems to) think most of the genome is functional. There is a lot of evidence to think he is wrong about this too.wd400
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
wd400 here are some questions for you: 1. Do you admit that Francis Collins is one of the preeminent experts in the world on the human genome? 2. Do you admit that the human genome is a matter "in biology"? 3. Do you admit that the human genome "makes sense" to Francis Collins? 4. Do you admit that Dobzhansky’s maxim is false?Barry Arrington
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Here is wd400's quote in full. I will let readers decide whether he is talking about being wrong about the human genome or evolutionary theory:
It’s also quite possible to depend on the results/methods of evolutionary biology without understanding much of the theory from which they are built (which was my point about Collins getting junk, HGT and gene counts wrong).
BTW, for those who do not know, "HGT" stands for "horizontal gene transfer," which is a topic of . . . evolutionary theory. Junk DNA is also a frequent topic in evolutionary theory. And the gene count issue has been raised in these pages countless times. In case you have not figured it out yet, this site is not devoted to the human genome project. So yet again wd400 confirms that he believes Collins was dead wrong about these aspects of evolutionary theory. Yet, somehow, despite being totally clueless about these aspects of evolutionary theory, Collins managed to lead to completion the most ambitious biology project in the history of the world. Maybe that swirling sound you hear is wd400 trying to spin his own comments. Barry Arrington
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
wd400:
He made these mistakes in part because he doesn’t have a deep understanding of evolutionary theory.
What is it, exactly, that modern evolutionary theory prohibits? Time travel?Mung
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Oh, Barry. Collins is/was wrong about key aspects of the human genome like the prevalence of HGT, number of genes and proportion of junk DNA. He made these mistakes in part because he doesn't have a deep understanding of evolutionary theory.wd400
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply