Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Weird story: Darwin prof targets Discovery Institute


[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 Dave claims “Darwinism” is “outdated” and “dishonest”: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?

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
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
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
Willfully I wondered if you'd remember. Wilfully Alan Fox
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
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
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! -Q Querius
High school was the best 20 years of chuck's life... ET
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 processes ET
ET is such a class act. I haven't heard someone called a "douche" since high school fifty years ago..... chuckdarwin
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Is there not some way you could broaden your vocabulary, Joe? Take a creative writing course? Buy a thesaurus? Alan Fox
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. -Q Querius
LOL- Alan Fox is still a coward. ET
LOL. JoeG's blog Alan Fox
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
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
Typical Marxist-Atheist meaningless claptrap.
Cogent argument. Alan Fox
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
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
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
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
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)
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. And, once again, the theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origins of life and never did. OoL is certainly related to evolution but it is not the same. It is perfectly possible to study and try and explain the diversification of life after it had appeared without knowing its origins. That is what evolutionary biology does. Proposing God as the Creator is not a scientific explanation. Even the most devout and learned believers have no idea how their God did what they believe He did, which is what they are asking of science. Atheism is not founded on the theory of evolution - it existed long before 1859 - it is an inference from the known flaws in the belief structures of the various religions. Seversky
Hnorman42 at 75, You know what? I'm tired of the "let's make sure the Atheists get in on this" thinking. Empirical science means what? The sky is blue and even Atheists can see that? Big deal. We're talking about life. Living things. If the starting proposition is that God cannot be included in science, fine, but don't tell me that Atheists are so important. OK? They need a non-God explanation, no matter how ridiculous. And even if science never existed, they would come up with something. Don't misunderstand, Atheists are free to be Atheists but since science is limited to Atheism then it is clear to me that it promotes atheism by claiming 'evolution is a fact,' even though ID is showing that it cannot be true as described in Biology textbooks. relatd
"materialists won’t stop using terms that contain “evolution” Propaganda technique. Andrew asauber
Microevolutionary processes are observed & well-documented.
The term "microevolutionary" is infected by darwinian dogma. Should be used a different word because ID(purpose) has nothing to do with darwinism(purposeless) but materialists won't stop using terms that contain "evolution" . Nothing evolve inside of an intelligent designed system. It's about preseted calibration that succeeds or it's about death. Evolution doesn't exist in ID systems and this word shouldn't be used because is a trojan horse . Lieutenant Commander Data
A year ago Stephen Meyer and Jordan Peterson had an exchange on Twitter
Yes. Microevolutionary processes are observed & well-documented. Mutation & selection are real processes, but lack the creative power to produce the information needed to generate novel protein folds, or major morphological innovations. ~SM
https://twitter.com/StephenCMeyer/status/1426769701581905923 So let’s bury that ID doesn’t support Darwinian processes in micro evolution or genetics. Michael Behe discusses constantly the limitations of Darwinian processes but he does recognize that they are at work in the real world of genetics, mostly by devolution. My guess is that if Darwin was alive today he would support the limitations on his ideas. jerry
Relatd @62 I think microevolution is not really contested by anyone much. I guess you could build a case that microevolution is not a Darwinian process. Most ID'ers would say that it is but it's just not significant. As far as God working without error in creation, I have similar views but they are faith-based rather than science-based. I actually think that the existence of music is strong evidence for a higher power but that sort of thing is more intuition and heart-based than it is empirical. ID is concerned with the emperical and the sort of thing that would concern people who do not have a predisposition toward faith as well as those who do. hnorman42
AF at 69, "Molecular phylogenetics is the key to the revolution..." Typical Marxist-Atheist meaningless claptrap. I've got another sock waiting and I'm not afraid to use it. relatd
As Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin once said: “First, DNA is not self-reproducing, second, it makes nothing and third, organisms are not determined by it” Lewontin, 1992). Lewontin, Richard C. (1992). "The Dream of the Human Genome", The New York Review, May 28, 31-40. Genetics isn't the basis for macroevolution. Genetics isn't what determines biological form. Genetics just determines if the biological form develops properly or not. And because of that, molecular phylogenetics has nothing to say with respect to universal common descent ET
For example, current evolutionary biology assumes birds are descendants of dinosaurs. From my understanding that is question begging.
As I said, molecular phylogenetics can only be useful when genetic material survives. Though there is much work in progress, there is fascinating evidence from developing chick embryos on pelvis development and comparison with fossils, including fossil embryos. Perhaps ontogeny does recapitulate phylogeny to some, maybe large, extent. Alan Fox
That's a good account you found there, Jerry. Alan Fox
Species and clades are what matter. Molecular phylogenetics is the key to the revolution, though classical taxonomy is all we have for long-extinct species
Is this a distinction without a difference? Yes and no. Clades are based on genomes and as such will be more accurate. But most clades have close resemblance to taxa, the old classification scheme till about 30 years ago. Here is good analysis of the similarities and differences.
Clades and grades are two different kinds of taxa. The difference between a clade and a grade is that they represent two different ways of grouping organisms. Up until the second half of the 20th century, all organisms were grouped together on the basis of shared morphological and physiological traits. There wasn’t any other way to do taxonomy, because back then nobody understood how genetics worked. Based on the work of Darwin it was generally assumed that all species in a given higher taxon were descended from a single common ancestral species, but this could not be conclusively proven. In the latter part of the 20th century, as genome sequencing started to become available, it became clear that some taxa that had been thought to contain closely related organisms in fact did not. It turned out that some kinds of organisms that were thought to be closely related were not, and that others that were not thought to be closely related were. A general overhaul of the whole idea of taxonomy was needed, and this was tackled by the biologist Julian Huxley who came up with the notion of clades versus grades. A clade is a taxon which is strictly defined by phylogenetics. By definition, a taxon is a clade if and only if it contains all organisms, and only those organisms, that descend from a single common ancestral species. A good example of a clade is Mammalia. All members of this taxonomic group are descended from a common ancestor, and that species and all its descendants form the entirety of Mammalia. We say that every clade is monophyletic, which means that it contains a discrete phylogenetic group in its entirety. Essentially, a clade is a “new-style” taxon, defined entirely on the basis of genetic relationships. A grade, on the other hand, is a taxon which is defined by morphological characteristics. Many grades are paraphyletic, meaning that they contain only part of a phylogenetic group, or else two or more separate phylogenetic groups pasted together. A good example is Reptilia. All reptiles are indeed descended from a common ancestor, but the birds are also descended from that same ancestor and are not considered to be reptiles. So Reptilia does not contain all descendants of its common ancestor, and is therefore not a clade. A grade such as Reptilia is an “old-style” taxon, defined entirely on the basis of visible characteristics, such as: being a vertebrate, laying hard-shelled eggs, being endothermic, and having scaly skin. As more and more living organisms have been genetically analyzed, the taxonomic hierarchy has been reorganized based on the results. Most of the “old-style” taxa turned out to be monophyletic, and these were simply converted implicitly into “new-style” clades. Those that turned out to be paraphyletic have been quietly deprecated. So every biologist today knows what a “reptile” is, but they also know that it is no longer a useful taxonomic category. None of this affects the concept of species, and it does not substantially affect genera either. The way that genera have always been defined, as groups of closely related species, means that almost all of them were in fact monophyletic. So the switch to the new style of taxonomy didn’t change the definition of very many genera. The effects of the change from morphology to phylogenetics are mostly at the higher levels of the taxonomic tree, i.e. the level of “mammal”, “reptile”, and above.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-a-clade-a-grade-and-a-taxon-How-do-species-and-genera-fit-into-this Will it affect what Behe said? I doubt it since all his work has been on genetics, the basis for clades. But if you can find a “t” not crossed that is all modern evolutionary biology has. Aside: determining the common ancestor should be the main problem. Many will be begging the question by assuming one exists. For example, current evolutionary biology assumes birds are descendants of dinosaurs. From my understanding that is question begging. jerry
I guess biological classification is passé.
You guess right, Jerry. Species and clades are what matter. Molecular phylogenetics is the key to the revolution, though classical taxonomy is all we have for long-extinct species. Alan Fox
Maybe this will solve the problem, it did for Richard Dawkins
At Last, Common Ground for Atheists and Intelligent Design Advocates
A Modest Proposal: Aliens So I have a suggestion. It might help find common ground between the advocates of Intelligent Design, and committed scientific materialists. Here goes: How about we stipulate this? All the evidence piling up that random mutations couldn’t possibly have planted and grown the Tree of Life does not point to the God of the Christians and the Jews. Instead, it points to the design of some higher, alien species. Say, a race of brilliant beings who live in Alpha Centauri, who have learned how to travel by wormholes. No, there’s no evidence for that, but there’s equally little evidence for the “Multiverse.” That’s a favorite fiction of atheists eager to escape the religious implications of the Big Bang. But that didn’t stop Stephen Hawking from touting it.
Professor Dave is a hypocrite and an imbecile when it comes to biology and science. ET
Too funny that Alan Fox doesn't understand biology or genetics. ET
Scientific beliefs about unrepeatable events from the past are identical with religious beliefs . ;) Lieutenant Commander Data
Everyone should watch Michael Behe discuss cellular processes. This half hour YouTube video discusses Darwinian processes and species change. It’s real but not what the evolutionary biologists are telling you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8 Again why must they distort about what’s going on? jerry
I once responded (in a little too cheeky of a manner) to Dave's video on James tour, and was met by many f bombs and ad hominems... he is no professor or professional. But he makes good money as a troll for sure. zweston
Hnorman42 at 57, What do you base this on? I believe, and this is explained by the Catholic Church, that God works infallibly in Creation. What is your reference or source? relatd
There are only species (gene pools)
I guess biological classification is passé. Somebody should tell the biology and evolution books and the people who write them. So spiders, trees, whales, bacteria, fish, birds, algae, pigs etc. are just one big happy group with no finer way to organize them. Could of fooled me. jerry
Darwinian process explains nothing above the genus level.
What are you talking about? There are only species (gene pools). For a bit of window-dressing you can add clades. The rest is arbitrary. Alan Fox
I haven’t read Behe’s book on Devolution but in a short description of it he seems to say that most species at the genus and species level developed through Darwinian processes. https://www.discovery.org/v/michael-behe-on-the-limits-of-evolution/ He believes it’s at the level of family that design is the best explanation. On another thread I mentioned that there are detailed courses on ID that would cover this. It’s obvious no one who comments here has taken these courses since no one references any specifics from them. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-michael-denton-explains-the-miracle-of-your-heart/#comment-763494 Does this mean UD is a sort of a seat of your pants version of ID? Aside: Darwinian process for change are 1) variation; 2) heritability; and 3) selection. All are non controversial. What is controversial is that there is no evidence of anything but trivial change that has happen as a result. As indicated by Behe’s observation that Darwinian process explains nothing above the genus level. jerry
What Darwinian processes/forces? Is it the rapid adaptation by epigenetic responses to the environment such as with Galápagos finches? Or the possibility that a starfish could evolve into a kangaroo by tiny incremental changes over billions of years? Yes, the cell is far too complex to have evolved. We've come a long way since scientists touted an undifferentiated living goop called "protoplasm" as the basic building block of all life. Since there's no reason that Darwinian evolution magically stopped at some point, the modern environmental stresses causing extinctions should be considered a *good thing* that propels wonderful new species and new body plans to evolve, right? Where are they? Furthermore, if humans also continue to evolve, then some humans must be more evolved than others. Thus, the blatantly racist eugenics movement that started in 1883 by Charles Darwin's cousin who inspired sterilization programs, genocides, and the idea that since we have the ability to control human evolution, we also have a moral directive to do so, was right after all. But according to the NIH,
Eugenics is an immoral and pseudoscientific theory that claims it is possible to perfect people and groups through genetics and the scientific laws of inheritance. Eugenicists used an incorrect and prejudiced understanding of the work of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel to support the idea of “racial improvement.”
Can someone explain to me why "Darwinian processes" should exclude eugenics and by what standard it's immoral? Disclaimer: I believe adamantly all people were created by a loving God without distinction between them, and that God abhors racism as exemplified in Numbers 12 in the Bible. -Q Querius
Relatd @ 53 I think that cells could be subjected to Darwinian forces. It's just that Darwinian forces could not account for their level of complexity. hnorman42
It’s mostly just a shuffling of alleles. It’s called micro-evolution.
Nope, it is not shuffling / microevolution/etc. it's fine-tuning. Lieutenant Commander Data
You could blow your cover
All the ID writers accept Darwinian processes in genetics. It’s no big deal. It’s mostly just a shuffling of alleles. It’s called micro-evolution. It only leads to trivial changes. Occasionally something positive happens though nearly always through devolution. It certainly does not explain Evolution. jerry
:lol: Flash news: Human brain is not designed to discover the truth, it's designed to receive the truth. Truth is not discovered by studying matter. Lieutenant Commander Data
Jerry at 51, I don't think so. Living cells are far too complex to have ever been subjected to Darwinian forces. New information and details about molecular switches, for example, continue to be discovered, leading to the conclusion that nothing accidental occurred. Only an intelligence could have been involved. relatd
Genetics! Darwinian processes are well accepted in genetics by ID.
Watch it, Jerry. You could blow your cover. ;) Alan Fox
What “certain things”? Please be specific
I have been, dozens of times. Genetics! Darwinian processes are well accepted in genetics by ID. jerry
Jerry at 43, "That ID accepts Darwin for certain things but not others may get some curious." What "certain things"? Please be specific. relatd
ET @48,
Hello, Rob, ignorant coward.
No need to get so pointed. Either it's obvious or it isn't.
Did you ever find any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities?
Well said. This gets to the heart of the matter.
Farina is a know-nothing . . .
After watching James Tour, a real, not fake, professor, destroy Farina's assertions from a position of expertise and research experience in the field, it becomes clear that Farina believes, as many detractors here, that as long as he doesn't admit to his arguments being destroyed, followed up with smug announcements that he "won," his supremacy is impenetrable. Not understanding the concepts of chemical purity and racemic mixtures, I doubt Farina could pass one of Dr. Tour's organic chemistry classes at Rice University, much less synthetic chemistry. -Q Querius
Hello, Rob, ignorant coward. Did you ever find any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities? Farina is a know-nothing douche, like you. ET
@46_Hello Joe "wet elecricity" G.iant moron... Did you watch Farinas video on Meyer yet? Rob Davis
Perfessor Dave has now taken on Stephen Meyer. He doesn't realize that Meyer has already taken on actual scientists over his claims. ET
Dave Farina is not a real professor. And he thinks that materialism, a failed philosophy, = science. Isaac Newton would disagree. However, Luskin was wrong about what Lovejoy did. And even if Lucy walked upright, it doesn't mean blind and mindless processes, like natural selection, did it. ET
Professor Dave is now claiming that this post represents some kind of official response from Discovery Institute.
We might think that a professor would be interested in a discussion on his ideas here to learn something before making false statements. But that's the kind of scholarship and "research" we've come to expect from Darwinists. Yes, I couldn't find where he's actually employed as a "Professor". People usually hide information like that for a reason. Silver Asiatic
I do not expect a change in terminology to effect the collapse of the Darwinian establishment.
Neither do I!!! It's a small step to possibly changing the nature of the dialogue though. That ID accepts Darwin for certain things but not others may get some curious. Another discussion from the past on this issue. This comment and subsequent responses https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/biology/michael-egnor-responds-to-michael-lemonick-at-time-online/#comment-92306 jerry
Regarding my last couple of comments: I do not expect a change in terminology to effect the collapse of the Darwinian establishment. This is a talking point - no more and no less. A while back Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini pointed out that looking at a survival event and expressing it as "selection for" gave it an unwarranted power in people's minds. Their observations had not the slightest effect on the scientific establishment. They were highly illuminating to me and many other people though. If you doubt the perfect equivalence between genetics and microevolution, then carefully define the difference in your own mind and ask someone you debate (a real seeker - not a propagandist) to define the difference. Some fruitful dialog will most likely follow. hnorman42
there is a very definitive tactic of attacking
I'm sorry if my comments appeared that way. That was not my intent. Silver Asiatic
Again, this is criticism of natural selection, not acceptance of it. Thus, you risk being called a “kook” under your own definition
No contradiction!!!! It’s just limited. That has to be by design. It is another strike against DNA as the source of Evolution. Observation: there is a very definitive tactic of attacking as opposed to understanding what’s being said. jerry
"So that’s the deception." SA, Yes! The problem is the buy-in to the narrative. You can't just snap your fingers and change a few words and Presto! You are just rearranging the furniture. The house is still a wreck. The lyrics are new but the song remains the same. Andrew asauber
Andrew Exactly. Evolutionary biology will claim "evolution is a fact" by looking at antibiotic resistance in bacteria, then that supposedly explains the development of all life on earth. So that's the deception. They prove that there is a change in the population, no matter how minor - then that becomes the Darwinian process for the emergence of everything. They don't stop with micro-evolution. Silver Asiatic
The real problem here will not be solved with simple changes in terminology. Andrew asauber
SA @ 30 I've known about microevolution and macroevolution for a while. It's the fact that microevolution is synonymous with genetics that has the vividness that could be readily perceived by young minds. The expression "macroevolution is just genetics writ large" is a lot easier to see through than the same expression with "microevolution" substituted for "genetics." Thanks for the help with the quotes - and the response as well. hnorman42
Jerry @34 You're attacking the power of natural selection to fit organisms to the environment in exactly the right way so that the ecology is not damaged. So, you're not defending the claims of natural selection here. You're saying those claims are wrong and actually natural selection has built-in limits that Darwinists do not admit or recognize. Again, this is criticism of natural selection, not acceptance of it. Thus, you risk being called a "kook" under your own definition. Silver Asiatic
Evolution by natural selection is self refuting. Why? Nothing in natural selection places a limitation on new capabilities but new capabilities increases success in reproduction. But if there were true then eventually the new capabilities would destroy the ecology and the entity developing all these capabilities. But we don’t see this. So something is limiting the developing of new capabilities. It has to be built in or designed such that there is a limitation. jerry
the personal attacks
I think its more like people trying to defend themselves from being called "kooks". Silver Asiatic
"Darwin’s ideas actually prove ID" Jerry, Try this on "anyone" and see who gets called a "kook". Andrew asauber
That sounds like a powerful hook for an argument. If you can establish that natural selection is only relevant to genetics, that would tend to stick with people
Exactly. It was obvious to me several years ago that people were talking past each other on this site so I proposed a multi tier level of evolution. Tier 4 was just micro evolution and all the arguments by those proposing natural evolution were in this tier. Over time I realized that micro evolution and genetics are the same thing. So really all they were pushing was genetics and then making the switch and calling it evolution. Here is a link to this 16 years ago. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952 But bashing Darwin is in the DNA of a lot of people here. But as I said above I can show how natural selection actually supports design. So the bashing is knee jerk. And now it’s getting personal. Which reminds me
Father, forgive them for they know not what they do
If you can establish that natural selection is only relevant to genetics, that would tend to stick with people.
We've had the micro vs macro evolution idea for a long time. For blockquotes https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp Silver Asiatic
Yes, Darwin remains a cultural hero. People think they're being revolutionary by wearing his face on a t-shirt. He's got his name on the walking-fish bumper sticker. He's like Che Guevara - the bold revolutionary. There's a strong market for anti-Christian sentiment among some sectors of the population. Silver Asiatic
Andrew Agreed. I would suggest to Jerry, instead of spreading demoralizing negativity and complaints about ID as a "failure" - take a break from UD for a while. Take a couple of months off. Go out somewhere on other blogs and try arguing with atheists and Darwinists elsewhere. Silver Asiatic
"... while valid and powerful, natural selection has nothing to do with Evolution." That sounds like a powerful hook for an argument. If you can establish that natural selection is only relevant to genetics, that would tend to stick with people. Can you tell us how you you would follow up if say -- a high school student -- asks for clarification? I think I have an idea but I want to find out for sure. P.S. Could someone tell me how to do block quotes? hnorman42
Natural selection disproves Evolution by a natural mechanism. So anyone arguing against natural selection is arguing against ID. I bet the people here never realized that Darwin’s ideas actually prove ID. Now Darwin never realized that but that is what the implications of natural selection are. So the pro ID position is to support Darwin’s three main ideas I listed above. Aside: the personal attacks are coming from people who identify as Christians. Aside2: there no one more pro ID here than myself. jerry
SA, Jerry is using the same language that someone would use to demoralize. For instance, popular media presents a lot of stuff that is intended to demoralize people with traditional/Christian values. I see the same trappings. Andrew asauber
The mark Darwin left on the field of biology is indelible and his position in the history of the science is assured. Even long after his death he is still providing a useful service as a lightning-rod for the more extreme elements in the ID/C movement. Seversky
It really seems like you are attempting to appear friendly to Darwinist culture.
That's the way it seems to me also. I can understand, people get tired of always being an outsider or on the losing end. There's a big world in favor of the Darwinist culture and it's very difficult being shunned and ridiculed by them. But I've seen ID supporters eventually become full-fledged Darwinists just because they started attacking ID as being "out of touch with mainstream science". I think of Vince Torley as an example. Vince went from ID promoter to ID attacker - and he's still a strong opponent of ID and believer in the power of the Darwinian mechanism. Silver Asiatic
Want to come off as a looney, argue against “natural selection.”
Larry Moran does it. Then there's this: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. " It's called "Dissent from Darwin" https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/ That list of signatures has tripled over the past 7 years or so, and it's among academics not the general public. So, I don't think ID Is the abject failure that it may seem to be. Darwin may be influential - like Sigmund Freud was. But nobody wants to go to a Freudian psychiatrist. Freud's ideas have been mostly debunked and many proven damaging. Silver Asiatic
"I bet if you ask anyone what they think of those who trash Darwin you will get an image of a kook." Jerry, Disagree. "Anyone" in your wager is clearly hyperbole. "Kook" is pejorative. It really seems like you are attempting to appear friendly to Darwinist culture. Andrew asauber
I bet if you ask anyone what they think of those who trash Darwin you will get an image of a kook
Not "anyone". It depends who you ask. There are many people who think all religious believers are kooks. I'm not going to stop believing because they don't like me. I know a lot of people who bash Darwin, It's like bashing Karl Marx or Richard Dawkins. Those guys have their fan clubs also. Silver Asiatic
I don’t think bashing Darwin-bashers is accomplishing anything, either
I disagree. I bet if you ask anyone what they think of those who trash Darwin you will get an image of a kook. Bashing kooks is a common sport these days. Actually it always was. And they would be right. Natural Selection is a powerful and valid idea. Anyone who denies this is a kook. The truth is however, that while valid and powerful, natural selection has nothing to do with Evolution. jerry
Jerry, I don't think bashing Darwin-bashers is accomplishing anything, either. Andrew asauber
Everyone is missing the point. I am not trying to lionize Darwin. I am trying to limit his achievements. I know exactly what he has contributed but nearly everyone here believes the way to diminish him is by trashing him. When 99% of the world associates an obvious truth with him, a truth they believe is profound. That is “natural selection.” Want to come off as a looney, argue against “natural selection.” Anyone doing so will just reinforce the image of ID as fringe creationist science and will get nowhere. Take Darwin off the table as a negative person and his ideas can then be evaluated. Just as an example, someone wrote a book about 10 years ago on the ranking of most influential people in history. Darwin ranked 12th. Also someone published another list 3 years ago and he was 9th most influential person in history. So whatever is being done is definitely not working. As I said, trashing Darwin is counterproductive. jerry
"Even with all his mistakes..." Jerry, You mean all of the "mistakes" the mass of unwashed get edumacated about in all the updated textbooks? Andrew asauber
Darwin needs to be taken down from the pedestal. What he contributed to science is minimal and, in fact, if he never existed his good ideas were already in circulation and would have continued without him. The damage he did to science and the world is not entirely his fault, but it is the fault of those who used him as an icon of materialist-atheism. Darwin is a mythological figure. It's "counterproductive" to criticize Darwin because that's how the narrative has been constructed. Creationists are bad, ignorant and laughable. Darwin is smart, good and progressive. Silver Asiatic
The ideas you mention are true
Everything I said is absolutely true. So who cares if others had some of the same ideas before him. And most of his ideas were wrong. Even with all his mistakes, it would be hard to argue that his ideas did not lead to many scientific discoveries. They just had nothing to do with Evolution. Also true, is the fixation on trashing Darwin. It’s counterproductive. Let me give you an analogy. Plato’s ideas led to the justification of slavery/serfdom for 2000 years. Yet Plato is held in high regard even though he was egregiously wrong on a very major idea. The Truth will set you free. Aside: what did all these scientific discoveries lead to. Certainly not to a greater understanding of Evolution. They led to modern day genetics. Along with the contributions of others jerry
Jerry - The ideas you mention are true, but they aren't *unique* to Darwin. Many others before Darwin said so. If you are just saying, "Darwin included true things" that's trivially true. We could probably say the same thing about flat-earthers. I'm sure they include trivially true, well-known statements as well. If that's all that's required to get your name in history books, we should prop up every third grader to Nobel status. What was unique to Darwin is that natural selection is capable of *producing* the intricacy we see in life. And that is precisely what we now know to be false. That's why the term "Darwinism" is still worthwhile - it still precisely describes the intellectual program that is problematic. johnnyb
There’s many new modes of evolution we have discovered since Darwin.
Obviously true. These are all part one of his ideas listed above. This is still Darwinian change. His basic ideas of 1859 are still very relevant even with all these new discoveries of how the genome changes. I’m sure we will find more. Why not acknowledge this? They definitely lead to change. They just don’t have anything to do with Evolution. Take the smart road with truth. It’s like the truth is a fate worse than death. A good analogy is Linus in the Charlie Brown cartoons. Trashing Darwin is like his blanket for most UD posters/commenters. Can’t live without it. But it may be preventing them from growing up. jerry
The problem is obvious - they are Darwinists, but can't admit to it. See, since the Discovery Institute is against Darwinism, the simple (and obvious) answer would be to simply say, "we agree with Discovery Institute that Darwinism is problematic, and will work with them to get rid of any remaining vestiges." But, the response is always to attack *Discovery*. The reason is obvious - they may say they have gone "beyond" Darwinism, but, having had many, many conversations with such people, 95% of the time, even though they complain bitterly about the label, Darwinism is lurking beneath the surface. "There's many new modes of evolution we have discovered since Darwin." Okay. So, are these informationally-based modes or not? How did they come to exist in the first place? If they are complex modes of evolution, how did it work in the early days of evolution? As you dig beyond the first layer, you will quickly find Darwinism coming up again. johnnyb
From memory (I may be wrong), wasn't the term "Darwinism" coined by Darwin's co-disvoverer, Wallace? T2
What weak argument am I making? I think I'm on your side here. hnorman42
See weak arguments in the Resources tab kairosfocus
I first became acquainted with the term "Darwinism" through Michael Behe's books in the early part of the century. At the time it seemed an appropriate way to distinguish between common descent and the blind watchmaker type of evolution. There may be many mechanisms of change but only natural selection was ever even represented as a mechanism that could answer Paley's problem. I don't think it's important to keep the term "Darwinism" but it is very important to keep the debate free of equivocation. Actually, accusations of equivocation on this point have come from both sides. hnorman42
Take the term “Darwinism,” for instance. Dave claims “Darwinism” is “outdated” and “dishonest”:
He's trying to defend the good name of mindless-evolution against those who would smear it as having something to do with Darwin. Yes, that's insulting. Plus, the DI is a bully, pushing its weight around. Thankfully, evolution has a science communicator with a BA in chemistry to try to defend it and enable it, hopefully, possibly, to survive. Silver Asiatic
Isn’t it about time that DI pushed the truth on Darwin and hopefully change the narrative? Darwin had a lot of ideas and some are fantastic science. They are the basics for genetics. 1) variations happen to every species’ genome. 100% proven. Darwin did not know how these variations happened but he was right about them happening. 2) these variations are inherited. 100% proven. He was unaware of the means of inheritance but right on that inheritance did happen. 3) some of these variations get selected and become preponderant. 100% proven. He was unaware of all the factors affecting preservation of changes but natural selection is one of the outcomes of genetic changes and adaptation to the environment. As said, this is a major part of modern genetics. Many other ideas Darwin had have proven useless. That’s to be expected in any scientific venture. One of the ideas he had that proved useless was that these variations would accumulate and produce new systems or the basis for new species. That prediction failed utterly. So the DI should become positive on Darwin’s contributions even if they were very limited. Darwin’s idea turned out to only be relevant to DNA and DNA has nothing to do with Evolution. But it has everything to do with genetics. If such were the official position of DI, then people such as Weird Dave would have to defend the indefensible. Right now the DI is forced to defend that Darwin’s idea are irrelevant when they are definitely valid science. jerry
Exceptionally i have to agree with ‘professor’ Dave. Darwinism is an outdated and DISHONEST term ... so let’s be honest, from now out let’s call it Moronism... From wikipedia: Noun. moronism (uncountable) (medicine, dated) The condition of being a moron (person of borderline intelligence). martin_r
I think "Professor Dave" is right in that the term "Darwinism" implies - and is clearly intended to imply - that the theory of evolution is no more than some sort of mid-Victorian ideology that hasn't moved on since 1859. I think he's wasting his time in the sense that the word is now too well-established in the lexicon of ID/Creationism. Probably better to return the favor and refer to ID/C as neo-Paleyism. Seversky
It seems that "Professor Dave" did not learn from the drubbing he received from James Tour about the origin of life. Fasteddious
A wild unhinged enemy is the best kind of enemy. (Unless the wild enemy has control of a real army or real guns, but that's not the case here.) polistra

Leave a Reply