Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Weird story: Darwin prof targets Discovery Institute

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[Update: A reader kindly writes to say re the post below: “Professor Dave is now claiming that this post represents some kind of official response from Discovery Institute. In fact, Discovery Institute has no affiliation with Uncommon Descent, and had no input or connection to this post. Just another one of the many things that Professor Dave is getting wrong right now!”

For the record, no. Uncommon Descent is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. And never claimed to be.

While we are on the subject, with what institution of higher learning is “Professor Dave” associated? That would take far more research than discovering that Uncommon Descent is not associated with the Discovery Institute. Over to you [ courtesy here] “Professor” Dave.]

See, most Darwin profs aren’t very smart. They emit crap that they heard fifty years ago to students and if we are lucky, they remember to feed worms to the garter snakes in the class terrarium. But this guy has bigger ambitions.

“Professor Dave” (Dave Farina with 1.92 million YouTube subscribers) — has started a campaign against the Discovery Institute. His first video, attacking Casey Luskin, went up yesterday.

He plans more videos. He allowed the world to know his idea for this campaign on January 31, 2022, in an interview with another anti-ID YouTuber, the biology student Jackson Wheat:

A friend observes that “Professor Dave” presents himself as a science educator, but his hatred of Discovery (or anyone supporting design) is so great that, wildly swinging the broadsword of “science,” he chops off heads and limbs of would-be allies.

Take the term “Darwinism,” for instance. Dave claims “Darwinism” is “outdated” and “dishonest”:

Dave should let the leading origin-of-life researcher Steven Benner know. In his prestigious Mendel Lecture in Brno, Czech Republic, Benner uses, without hesitation, the very term Dave said was DI propaganda:

Isn’t Darwinism the Darwinist’s proudest boast? Didn’t even Lynn Margulis have to go along with it?

Comments
Querius at 104, The wall between the origin of life and so-called evolution must exist because Darwinists can't admit that chemicals can accidentally become living things, according to them. The emperor has no clothes and can't explain the origin of life...relatd
August 23, 2022
August
08
Aug
23
23
2022
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
ET at 108, Like a fly buzzing around your head, Alan's job here is to create confusion and promote the discredited theory of evolution. He can't stop. He then mocks ID because he, and others, don't want it getting into schools. People might start believing in God. Can't have that.relatd
August 23, 2022
August
08
Aug
23
23
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
What is Alan's problem? He was wrong then and he is wrong now. Why does he always choose to double down on his ignorance and dishonesty?ET
August 23, 2022
August
08
Aug
23
23
2022
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Willfully I wondered if you'd remember. WilfullyAlan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
ChuckDarwin:
I haven’t heard someone called a “douche” since high school fifty years ago…..
OK. What would you call a provocateur who calls out a misspelled word that is actually spelled correctly? That is a perfect example of a knee-jerk reaction, to boot!ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Dawkins doesn't. He goes right from chemical evolution to biological evolution. If you read books like "Life Ascending", it is obvious that the OoL and the evolution of the diversity of life, is a distinction without a difference.ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
ET, Notice how Darwinists have to put a wall between Origin of Life and Evolution? The supposedly deterministic Origin of Life consists of a type of modern Alchemy. They're convinced that there's a recipe to turn lead (chemicals) into gold (life). But despite the wall of separation, there's no shortage of fantasy stories employing imaginative ideas about how lipid droplets "coulda" EVOLVED into semi-permeable cell walls. Evolved into . . . So here's another challenge that they will ignore as usual: 1. Grow massive colonies of bacteria in a nutrient broth. 2. Put them into a micro-blender and make a bacteria smoothie out of it. 3. Place them into likely mineral and atmospheric environments, hot and cold, zapping the smoothies with electricity like in the Frankenstein movies, bubble gases through it, fry some on hot lava rocks, etc. Whatever makes them happy. 4. With ALL the required organic components needed for life, it should not take very long for artificial life to arise by spontaneous generation! This is because of the propensity for self organization that "musta" been present from the beginning! -QQuerius
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
High school was the best 20 years of chuck's life...ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
The evolutionary process relies on the production of novel genomes by mutations, meiotic mixing etc resulting in new phenotypes subject to selection by the relevant niche.
So what? There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life. Differential accumulations of mutations cannot do it.
What does ID tell us of mechanisms?
That design is a mechanism, by definition. That genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of TELIC processes. That "built-in responses to environmental cues" makes more sense than evolution by means of blind and mindless processesET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
ET is such a class act. I haven't heard someone called a "douche" since high school fifty years ago.....chuckdarwin
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
There aren’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life.
The evolutionary process relies on the production of novel genomes by mutations, meiotic mixing etc resulting in new phenotypes subject to selection by the relevant niche. What does ID tell us of mechanisms? How, when, where does/did the Designer act?Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Aaln Fox:
How many comments of yours containing “coward, liar, willfully (sic) ignorant” would I need to find to support that claim, I wonder.
1- "Willfully" is spelled correctly, you ignorant douche. 2- You have to be able to link my usage of those words to what you have claimed. Are you really that dim?ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Wow. Alan doubles down on his willful ignorance. There isn't any maybe about it. It is a fact that how life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. Period. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life.ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Alan could NEVER support the claim that I “call people you don’t agree with “coward” as a kneejerk action”.
How many comments of yours containing "coward, liar, willfully (sic) ignorant" would I need to find to support that claim, I wonder.Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
And why can’t you understand the basic fact that how life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved?
Maybe, maybe not. Until we have more idea how life got started on Earth, we can't say. But it doesn't alter the fact that evolutionary theory does not and cannot explain life's origin, only its relatedness and diversity.Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Liar. Alan could NEVER support the claim that I "call people you don’t agree with “coward” as a kneejerk action". Alan Fox is a pathological liar and obviously proud of it. Only cowards spew false accusations. 2 for 2!ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Coward fits you.
You call people you don't agree with "coward" as a kneejerk action. I don't see what's cowardly about posting comments that you don't like at UD. And it's a pretty obvious distraction from substance.
Pathological liar also fits you.
Ditto (and for wilful ignorance)Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Why, Alan? Coward fits you. Pathological liar also fits you. And why can't you understand the basic fact that how life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved? Just how stupid are you? You realize that you are just proving my point, right? And evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, doesn't explain the relatedness and diversity of life on earth.ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
And the biggest scam is the supposed evolution of “simple” living cells from non-living chemicals.
Nice STOOL! ;) Evolution does not purport to explain life's origin, only its relatedness and diversity.Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Is there not some way you could broaden your vocabulary, Joe? Take a creative writing course? Buy a thesaurus?Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 @83, Good points all. The big problem is that Darwinism can only "predict" in retrospect. It can rationalize what "musta" happened such as parallel evolution, repeated evolution, and miraculous preservation of "living fossils" and supposedly 60-70 billion year old tissue in unfossilized dinosaur bones. But even the slightest mutation supposedly "proves" evolution, even without a demonstrated process that ratchets up complexity. And the biggest scam is the supposed evolution of "simple" living cells from non-living chemicals. And no pompous declaration changes Darwinism from anything but science fantasy based on Charles Darwin's blatant racism found in his book, The Descent of Man. -QQuerius
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
LOL- Alan Fox is still a coward.ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
LOL. JoeG's blogAlan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
JoeG is not only smarter than Alan Fox, he is also a much better person. However, I would never say that evolution is not a fact.ET
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Evolution is not a fact. ID is showing that to be the case.
You're getting more like JoeG with these sorts of comments and your underpants gnome logic.Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Typical Marxist-Atheist meaningless claptrap.
Cogent argument.Alan Fox
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
It all depends what cargo the word 'evolution' carries. If it simply means that X is a function of time, it is a fact. However, the closer we move towards a Darwinian perspective, the fainter the empirical basis for it is. Yes, mutations can get fixed in a population. Formally, this is evolution, but what kind of evolution and what is its mechanism? These things do indeed occur, but only at the cost of functional degradation. What does not have an empirical basis whatsoever is statistically significant evolutionary increases in the amount of biological function by means of RV + NS. This model as a mechanism of new biological function has zero evidence.EugeneS
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Sev:
The process of evolution is a fact whether or not atheism or Christianity are true. We have sufficient evidence from current research and the fossil record to be able to say that it is the best scientific explanation we have at this time.
Not even wrong. Falsifications of Darwin's theory
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Defense of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
As to the stubborn refusal of Darwinists, such as Seversky, to ever accept any experimental falsification of their theory,
“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 R. Popper
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Seversky at 80 and 81, I've seen all this before. The same old same old. Evolution is not a fact. ID is showing that to be the case. Your obvious 'concern' for Scripture has nothing to do with Scripture - everyone reading should realize this. You only mention Augustine to raise doubt but is this doubt valid? I mean, at all? No. It's not. St. Augustine wrote this in 451 A.D. It was the best he could do. https://www.amazon.com/41-St-Augustine-Vol-Christian/dp/0809103265/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= From the Catholic Church: Communion and Stewardship Part 69: "... But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2). 'relatd
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
AUGUSTINE ON FAITH AND SCIENCE
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion" [1 Timothy 1.7]. (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39)
Seversky
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply