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 Dave claims “Darwinism” is “outdated” and “dishonest”: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
Jerry at 43, "That ID accepts Darwin for certain things but not others may get some curious." What "certain things"? Please be specific.relatd
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
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
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
@46_Hello Joe "wet elecricity" G.iant moron... Did you watch Farinas video on Meyer yet?Rob Davis
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Perfessor Dave has now taken on Stephen Meyer. He doesn't realize that Meyer has already taken on actual scientists over his claims.ET
May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
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
April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
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
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.com/biology/michael-egnor-responds-to-michael-lemonick-at-time-online/#comment-92306jerry
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Jerry
there is a very definitive tactic of attacking
I'm sorry if my comments appeared that way. That was not my intent.Silver Asiatic
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
"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. Andrewasauber
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
The real problem here will not be solved with simple changes in terminology. Andrewasauber
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Jerry
the personal attacks
I think its more like people trying to defend themselves from being called "kooks".Silver Asiatic
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
"Darwin’s ideas actually prove ID" Jerry, Try this on "anyone" and see who gets called a "kook". Andrewasauber
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.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
jerry
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
HNorman
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.aspSilver Asiatic
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
"... 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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
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. Andrewasauber
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Andrew
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Jerry
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
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
"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. Andrewasauber
April 18, 2022
April
04
Apr
18
18
2022
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply