Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinian evolution and apparently suboptimal design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cornelius Hunter points out that the most powerful arguments for schoolbook Darwinism are theological in character: What God wouldn’t do, etc. And they also apply only to alternative viewpoints, not to core Darwinism itself:

The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.

The irony in all this is that evolution itself is a utilitarian formulation. That is, natural selection describes a process in which species with greater fitness (or utility) evolve. The evolutionary process must create greater utility. Therefore, the many examples of disutility, presented as proof of evolution, in fact are problematic for evolution. We must believe that such useless designs escaped natural selection’s watchful eye which, otherwise, seems to have no limit of precision engineering.

While evolutionists fail to apply this evidence of disutility to their own theory, they inappropriately apply it to intelligent design. In other words, evolutionists subject intelligent design to the evolutionary criteria of fitness and utility, while dropping that criterion from evolutionary theory. They have it backwards.

Cornelius Hunter, “Why the Main Argument Against Intelligent Design Is False” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 7, 2022)

Recently, we were looking at a salamander whose genome seems like a mess but it has gotten on fine for many millions of years nonetheless. The people who sound so sure of what is and isn’t good design are often simply imposing an opinion or a value judgment.

You may also wish to read:

At Scientific American: Salamander “junk DNA” challenges long-held view of evolution. Douglas Fox at SciAm: The salamanders would be on death’s door if they were human. “Everything about having a large genome is costly,” Wake told me in 2020. Yet salamanders have survived for 200 million years. “So there must be some benefit,” he said. The hunt for those benefits has led to some heretical surprises, potentially turning our understanding of evolution on its head.

Comments
Seversky "Maybe he was but it doesn’t make the Fall of Man narrative any the less absurd." Says the man who, without any objective moral basis whatsoever, constantly rails against the many, real and imagined, moral sins of Christians, whilst casting a completely blind eye to the exponentially worse, and unimaginable, 'moral horror' that Darwin unleashed on the world with his 'death as the creator' theory.
How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? – John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”13 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/ “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species – 1861, page 266 A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – Chapter 4 Michael Medved and Richard Weikart Lay Bare the Evolutionary Roots of Nazism – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkv3B0LF-Sw Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. - per Darwin then and now “V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 - per thunder Here is a picture of what the little statue on Lenin’s desk looked like: Hugo Rheinhold’s Monkey https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Y8HpKyHOL._SL1009_.jpg Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-darwins-impact Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 Excerpt: Mao and his fellow Communists, “found in Marxism what seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive.” He concludes his article thus: “This was not, of course, all Darwin’s doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a ‘racial’ struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled.” Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin. https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism) “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
Verse:
Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77
When the subject of sub-optimum design is brought up IDists are divided on their response. Some argue that there is no sub-optimum design, in spite of a plethora of examples.
What are these examples? I have not seen any presented here. jerry
Bornagain77/16
It is particularly interesting to note that Francis Bacon’s inductive methodology, i.e. the scientific method itself, was directly inspired by Bacon’s deep Christian belief in the ‘original sin’, I.e in ‘the fall of man’.
Maybe he was but it doesn't make the Fall of Man narrative any the less absurd. Seversky
ChuckyD at 13, just perhaps you should give "the most biased book on the planet" a little more serious look rather than merely just trying to laugh it off? After all, it was Judeo-Christian presuppositions, and Judeo-Christian presuppositions alone, which gave birth to modern science. i.e. "Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has."
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, Robert Koons, and Christopher Dawson.
Via Stephen Meyer’s book "Return of the God Hypothesis"; here are the three necessary presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
It is particularly interesting to note that Francis Bacon's inductive methodology, i.e. the scientific method itself, was directly inspired by Bacon's deep Christian belief in the 'original sin', I.e in 'the fall of man'.
Bacon's "Enchanted Glass" - Emily Morales - December 2019 Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the "Father" of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith's view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,, Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon's inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement: 3. Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press. https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method. https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291 Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford
Moreover, Atheists, such as yourself ChuckyD, simply can't even do science in the first place without illegitimately, and self-refutingly, 'borrowing' these essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions.
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
Moreover ChuckyD, besides Darwinian Atheists being forced to illegitimately, and self-refutingly, 'borrow' from Judeo-Christian presuppositions, The Atheistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution are, for all practical purposes, completely useless, (even detrimental), for the advancement of modern science.
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." - Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005
Thus ChuckyD, you may laugh at "the most biased book on the planet", but, by golly, the world would be a drastically different, and much harsher, place to live if the presuppositions held within "the most biased book on the planet" did not give us modern science in the first place. I certainly would not like to live 500 years ago without all the modern conveniences that modern science has given us. So laugh away if you must ChuckyD. As for myself, I am very grateful for that "most biased book on the planet" since it has produced exceedingly 'good fruit' for man in the here and now. Moreover, since it has produced exceedingly 'good fruit' for man in the here and now, I am extremely confident that we can trust that "most biased" book's promises, via Jesus Christ's victory over death, for an exceedingly good life in the eternal hereafter., i.e. in heaven. Quote and Verses
“Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” - Francis Bacon Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019 Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately? https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/ Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
bornagain77
Querius
“living fossil” sea creatures “musta” been isolated in the past in an environment that apparently remained unchanged for millions and millions of years
We'd have to believe there were environments where the food supply, presence or absence of competitors, diseases or other risks (volcanic activity or earthquakes on the ocean floor) - never showed significant change over millions of years. That's the faith-based statement offered. We observe that natural environments undergo many changes, even only with increase or decrease of organisms that affect life. How would it be possible for nothing to happen for millions of years, and in the relatively same environment, changes were so radical that they supposedly forced the evolution of thousands of different species and complex biological features? Silver Asiatic
Chuckdarwin BA77 you do make me laugh…..
Finally! This is the most serious evidence for evolution . I'm seriously pondering to accept evolution as my religion . Hahaha! :lol: Lieutenant Commander Data
BA77 I've got to give you credit--you do make me laugh..... Like the Bible isn't the most biased book on the planet--don't believe it and you get kicked to the curb for eternity... chuckdarwin
ChuckyD, your quote from wikipedia on "living fossils' is biased, to put it mildly. Which is not surprising since wikipedia, for the most part, is notoriously hostile towards ID people and claims. bornagain77
Chuckdarwin I gather this is the notion that Adam (and Eve) is responsible for not just the “fallen state” of man and nature, but, at least by implication, for imperfect biological processes and structures.
Oops, "poor design" it's explained by sin. But chuckdarwin change the subject:
What is unclear to me is how this relates to evolution since evolution and Genesis qua literal history and/or science are mutually exclusive.
So after your "poor design" jokes ("95+ percent extinction rate", blabla,.. "miscarriages" ) are explained you have no reply and switch to "so what" :lol: because Genesis and darwinism are incompatible. . Well, it's obvious for everyone that both -darwinism and Christianity -are religions because Church of atheists also use theological arguments (like "poor design" , "God wouldn't do that way but this way", etc.) not scientific arguments. ;)
While the body plan of a living fossil remains superficially similar, it is never the same species
:lol: You can't make this stuff up. Same people push :men are women and women are men insanity. Lieutenant Commander Data
Chuckdarwin@9, you make a good point re “the fall of man”. When the subject of sub-optimum design is brought up IDists are divided on their response. Some argue that there is no sub-optimum design, in spite of a plethora of examples. Others argue that it is due to Adam and Eve’s action in the garden. Scamp
Querius lists as an "important" concept
remembering the biblical claim of the fall of mankind and all of nature, resulting in a slow collapse...
I gather this is the notion that Adam (and Eve) is responsible for not just the "fallen state" of man and nature, but, at least by implication, for imperfect biological processes and structures. What is unclear to me is how this relates to evolution since evolution and Genesis qua literal history and/or science are mutually exclusive. Why, from a creationist or ID perspective even mess with evolution? You apparently don't need it in your "worldview" (on a personal aside, I detest that word). You already have your explanation signed, sealed and delivered... Regarding Querius' poser re "living fossils" there is an excellent answer in Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil. I can't do a better job, so I will quote it at length:
A living fossil is an extant taxon that cosmetically resembles ancestral species known only from the fossil record. To be considered a living fossil, the fossil species must be old relative to the time of origin of the extant clade. Living fossils commonly are of species-poor lineages, but they need not be. While the body plan of a living fossil remains superficially similar, it is never the same species as the remote ancestors it resembles, because genetic drift would inevitably change its chromosomal structure. Living fossils exhibit stasis (also called "bradytely") over geologically long time scales. Popular literature may wrongly claim that a "living fossil" has undergone no significant evolution since fossil times, with practically no molecular evolution or morphological changes. Scientific investigations have repeatedly discredited such claims. (emphasis added, citations omitted)
chuckdarwin
Polistra, Jerry, Bornagain77, and Silver Asiatic, Your posts introduce some important concepts: - negative feedback loops and programmable epigentics for rapid adaptability in phenotypes - criticizing a design from a position of substantial ignorance - remembering the biblical claim of the fall of mankind and all of nature, resulting in a slow collapse - the absence of deficiency and waste in a purported ubiquitous process of evolution, but rather a prevalence of brilliant designs only beginning to be understood. Since Chuckdarwin and Seversky have now reappeared once again, can they explain the presence in the fossil record of modern organisms that the popular press refers to as "living fossils"? Yes, I'm aware of such arguments as some "living fossil" sea creatures "musta" been isolated in the past in an environment that apparently remained unchanged for millions and millions of years. Can they cite hard scientific evidence for their arguments rather than speculative science fiction? -Q Querius
Sev
If the human reproductive system were the outcome of messy natural evolutionary processes we might expect such tragic waste and inefficiency...
If evolution was the cause, we would expect tragic waste and inefficiency. So, when we find elegance, symmetry, beauty, and remarkable efficiency in nature we can conclude that it was not evolution that produced it. Silver Asiatic
The following direct contradiction in 'Darwinian reasoning'*,,,,
We must believe that such useless designs escaped natural selection’s watchful eye which, otherwise, seems to have no limit of precision engineering.
,,, that direct contradiction in "Darwinian reasoning'* seems to be completely lost on Seversky and ChuckyD since, by golly, in their Darwinian theology their straw man version of god, that they have constructed in their imaginations, would never allow such things as miscarriages and extinctions. Perhaps ChuckyD and Seversky should have gone to Sunday school a little more often. The "fall of man" is literally one of the first things they teach you. Moroever, as much as it may irk ChuckyD and Seversky to know this, "The Fall of Man" was, in fact, integral to the rise on modern science
The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method. https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291 The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science https://denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/the-fall-of-man-and-the-foundations-of-science/ April 2021 - Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’e inductive methodology) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980
Of note: * ("Darwinian reasoning' is a term which is an oxymoron in and of itself since atheists have forsaken free will, and therefore have forsaken 'reason' altogether),,,
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. - per ENV
bornagain77
I have before suggested that perfection cannot beget imperfection
How do you know that this is not the best of all possible worlds? The answer: you don’t. You assume the creator of this world is stupid. Which is contradictory. Maybe the creator of this world might understand what He has created. Again maybe you should refrain from commenting and just ask questions. jerry
Seversky @ 2 Not to mention a 95+ percent extinction rate over the course of biological history on the planet. I have before suggested that perfection cannot beget imperfection--the intelligent designer as Christian God is belied by biology. Nature cannot be characterized as anything but harsh. And, as Darwin pointed out, profligate in its waste. This every wildlife biologist knows only too well. A so-called theory of "intelligent design" does not have this luxury. Hunter states:
The irony in all this is that evolution itself is a utilitarian formulation. That is, natural selection describes a process in which species with greater fitness (or utility) evolve. The evolutionary process must create greater utility. Therefore, the many examples of disutility, presented as proof of evolution, in fact are problematic for evolution. We must believe that such useless designs escaped natural selection’s watchful eye which, otherwise, seems to have no limit of precision engineering.
This is sophistry on steroids. As extinction rates clearly show, evolution is not a process of "greater utility," but a process of trial and error. Trial and error does lead, eventually, to greater fitness, but it is a sloppy, painful and inefficient process. Which makes it all the more bizarre that Hunter would choose to describe natural selection as exerting a "watchful eye," when ID has unremittently characterized evolution as "mindless, random chance," or, to use one of Kairofocus' favorite phrases, "blind dynamic stochastic processes." chuckdarwin
Yet again we have the improper design trotted out as a refutation to design when the commenter refused to acknowledge that these are probably part of perfect design. Also the commenters refuse to acknowledge that whatever is espoused as the naturalistic cause of Evolution refutes itself from evidence and logic. It must be tough to constantly support nonsense. But they do it. That is the interesting question. WHY? jerry
The miscarriage rate in cases where the woman knows she is pregnant and those cases where she does not could be somewhere between 30% - 50%. If the human reproductive system were the outcome of messy natural evolutionary processes we might expect such tragic waste and inefficiency but no one would be to blame. But if, on the other hand, the human reproductive system were designed then the designer bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the billions of unborn lives lost over the hundreds of thousands of years we have been around. Can you imagine what would happen to a human designer who knowingly designed and implemented a process that killed so many? Yet here we have Cornelius Hunter and others leaping to the defense of this "Designer" without one iota of blame attached. I doubt that the mothers who lose their unborn children think of that loss as serendipitous. Seversky
The most important design feature of life is negative feedback. Even in obviously designed electronics, negative feedback can factor out 'inadequate' or 'vestigial' components, and can use inadequate components inversely to create an advantage. Life has an infinite number of feedback loops, plus the meta-adaptive loop of epigenes that can turn existing feedback loops on or off to gain more advantage. An organ may become vestigial or counter-useful in some situations, but the meta-loops can find a way to make its specific qualities useful by inversion. Or in one word, life has serendipity. polistra

Leave a Reply