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 Dave claims “Darwinism” is “outdated” and “dishonest”: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
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
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
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
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
"materialists won’t stop using terms that contain “evolution” Propaganda technique. Andrewasauber
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
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
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
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
August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
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
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
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 descentET
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
That's a good account you found there, Jerry.Alan Fox
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
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
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Maybe this will solve the problem, it did for Richard Dawkins
At Last, Common Ground for Atheists and Intelligent Design Advocates
https://stream.org/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.
jerry
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Professor Dave is a hypocrite and an imbecile when it comes to biology and science.ET
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Too funny that Alan Fox doesn't understand biology or genetics.ET
August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Scientific beliefs about unrepeatable events from the past are identical with religious beliefs . ;)Lieutenant Commander Data
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
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
August 20, 2022
August
08
Aug
20
20
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
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
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
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
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
: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
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
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
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Genetics! Darwinian processes are well accepted in genetics by ID.
Watch it, Jerry. You could blow your cover. ;)Alan Fox
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
What “certain things”? Please be specific
I have been, dozens of times. Genetics! Darwinian processes are well accepted in genetics by ID.jerry
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply