Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

[rich!]

I had one myself for a while.

Would you believe it if a naturalist said so? It's rather naive to think that a 'church' of scientists are spotless. They're as human as anyone else.

I find it very hard to think of what a "church" of scientists would look like.

They'd be too busy arguing about inaccuracies in each others theories/experimental methodologies to engage in any kind of worship... which is kind of the difference between "science" and "religion"

 

[kyser_soze]

creation theories

They aren't theories tho, they're religious dogma that all hang on the concept that a deity created the universe and everything in it.

 

[dilute micro]

Why do you think this? Best not to try to second guess what people think - just take them by what they post. Do you have any links? I'm not familiar with either of these names.

These two are a couple of the big names in the world of debate on the subject. They give general arguments as opposed to specific ones and they are well versed on Darwinism, more so than professors I've seen.

People shouldn't take offense to creationists arguing against Darwinian evolution or anything else for that matter. If Darwinism is sound it will hold its own. But it hasn't. One thing that you come to see quick after getting into it are the products of neo-darwinism as it has been indoctrinated over the years, one being complete unquestioning faith in the leaders of Darwinist theory and naturalism. Another is the claim that they do 'real' science and so it can more or less 'prove' itself in the process. But a true critical thinker can see that many of the responses to pointed out problems are just the imagination of the responder and not real science.

 

[dilute micro]

I find it very hard to think of what a "church" of scientists would look like.

Ask Lynn Margulis.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry, DM, but that is meaningless blather that misrepresents the science really very badly. Please provide some links or give a summary of the arguments in your own words.

 

[dilute micro]

They aren't theories tho, they're religious dogma that all hang on the concept that a deity created the universe and everything in it.

No they are theories and much closer to naturalistic ones than you think.

 

[Fruitloop]

No they aren't!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Is the Johnson in question Philip Johnson? The guy who wrote the 'Wedge' text?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy.

The reason this is important is that a) most non-religious people won't take the argument from Genesis seriously, so you have to dress it up in pseudo-science, b) these people are about cultural engineering, specifically in the US and have to work around the US First Amendment when it comes to pushing their stuff in school biology lessons, c) they need a 'scientific' looking alternative to evolutionary biology in order to exploit the inherent tendency of the popular media to want interesting controversies with two sides.

Bible vs science simply isn't a fresh and exciting controversy for most people, it's something decided long ago in favour of science. ID vs evolution can be dressed up as science vs science (ID has equations after all) in order to get it into schools, for which creating the appearance of scientific debate is essential. This rather devious PR technique is very similar to that being used by the climate change contrarians. Create the *appearance* of a controversy, even though actually there isn't one in the scientific journals, then demand 'equal time' with the science. That then provides the 'wedge' for sympathetic far-right politicians to demand that creationism be taught alongside evolution on equal terms.

The latest wrinkle, now that the ID theorists have undergone scientific scrutiny and been dismissed as pseudo-science, is to conflate this artificial controversy with real debates in science, e.g. about puntuated equilibrium or symbiogenesis. A big help is that Lynn Margulis, a significant figure in the latter scientific debate has a tendency to outspoken and often rather eccentric statements on a variety of topics, from neo-Darwinism to whether HIV causes AIDS and the truth about the 9/11 attacks. The creationists have seized on some of these statements for their PR value in adding fresh vitality to the increasingly stale sythetic controversy they kicked up around Intelligent Design.

 

[kyser_soze]

OMG, this is the teaching ID in schools bollocks.

Creationists call upon a metaphysical entity, and all their arguments are rooted in religous faith and therefore unfalsifiable.

Evolution is a theory that is constantly being tested, updated and amended as new information becomes available.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No they are theories and much closer to naturalistic ones than you think.

Give us an example, please.

 

[dilute micro]

Sorry, DM, but that is meaningless blather that misrepresents the science really very badly. Please provide some links or give a summary of the arguments in your own words.

Uhh... why?

I gave you my opinion of who I think give good, well-rounded, arguments against Darwinism. And how would you know if it "misrepresents" the science anyway? It doesn't sound like you're much into it. If one isn't already devoted to a particular side, a true scholar imo will look into both sides of a debate.

Do you want me to blog?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Uhh... why?

I gave you my opinion of who I think give good, well-rounded, arguments against Darwinism. And how would you know if it "misrepresents" the science anyway? It doesn't sound like you're much into it. If one isn't already devoted to a particular side, a true scholar imo will look into both sides of a debate.

Do you want me to blog?

No, specifically, your post misrepresented the science. You very obviously don't understand basic scientific methodology.

 

[kyser_soze]

So do you think young earth creationism is a theory then DM>?

 

[Fruitloop]

It's probably a theory, just a ludicrous one.

 

[phildwyer]

So the proof for a generous but mysteriously invisible entity taking time out from his/her busy universe/everything-creating schedule to design the world, drop off a load of living things that all get on and then promptly fuck off for an eternity is what, exactly?

The proof of God's existence is rational, not empirical. Basically one starts from the assumption that human experience of the world is made possible by the nature of the human mind, and then one looks at what characteristics of the human mind make our experience possible, and one arrives at the ability to conceptualize. God is the source of that ability.

An empiricist would retort that such a God only exists in the mind. A rationalist would respond that *everything* only exists in the mind, in the sense that human experience of the world is only made possible by the nature of the human mind.

Regarding Darwinism, it has long been disproved empirically. My own view is that SJ Gould came up with the most convincing post-Darwinist theory, and that his theory is perfectly compatible with the existence of God (whereas Darwin's, and those of ultra-Darwinists like Dawkins are not).

 

[phildwyer]

Actually, the main motor so far - as far as we can tell nowadays - was an outside force and the changes have been very fast but the evolution, after such a cataclysmic event, possibly quite slow... Ask Phil, he loves it...

Precisely. The primary cause of evolution is not natural selection, as Darwin wrongly believed, but comet impacts. Such impacts are in turn caused by the collisions of infinitely distant galaxies. So the question of evolutionary causality cannot be used to refute the existence of God.

 

[phildwyer]

As far as I am aware the only people who 'know neo-darwinism to be dead' are creationists.

Have you read Gould's last book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory?" He argues convincingly for the death of Darwinism therein, and he was surely no creationist.

 

[Fruitloop]

Precisely. The primary cause of evolution is not natural selection, as Darwin wrongly believed, but comet impacts. Such impacts are in turn caused by the collisions of infinitely distant galaxies. So the question of evolutionary causality cannot be used to refute the existence of God.

Why, because the causal closure of the material world extends to nucleic acids but not comet trajectories? By the way, comets in general tend to originate in the Kuiper Belt or the Ooort cloud, so they are not particularly special as regards other objects in the solar system. In fact they are just asteroids with a debris tail.

Comets from most distant galaxies would take longer than the current age of the universe to reach us.

 

[gorski]

Yo, Phil! Welcome back! Where have you been hiding, then?

 

[Fruitloop]

Have you read Gould's last book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory?" He argues convincingly for the death of Darwinism therein, and he was surely no creationist.

Have you read some papers, instead of all this pop-science bullshit?

 

[gorski]

And "some papers" would teach you how to think properly, methodologically speaking, not to mention Philosophy as a whole?

 

[phildwyer]

Yo, Phil! Welcome back! Where have you been hiding, then?

In the bush of darkest Ghana. I just made it to a medium-sized city, Takoradi, from where this missive is reaching you. I have just seen a barefoot man carrying a pair of trainers on his head.

 

[gorski]

Cool... Take care!

 

[phildwyer]

Have you read some papers, instead of all this pop-science bullshit?

Gould may have written some pop-science, but his final work is extremely serious, ground-breaking stuff, and it finally buries Darwinism. Its a funny thing but I've yet to encounter a Darwinist who's read it. Anyone?

 

[Fruitloop]

And "some papers" would teach you how to think properly, methodologically speaking, not to mention Philosophy as a whole?

Some scientific papers might give him an idea of what the current state of play in a particular scientific discipline actually is, rather than whatever nonsense some also-ran is peddling to justify his publisher's advance. I also think you might be pleasantly surprised by the ontological reservation employed - there is very little 'this is all absolutely real and what I'm giving you is the unadulterated truth' and rather a lot of 'here is some research ('sensous human activity' ) whose outcomes we believe ceteris paribus are repeatable.

 

[gorski]

Well, we've seen countless time they are not repeatable, so...

As for ontological stuff: that doesn't hold water in today's Philosophy, sorry... We left metaphysics behind...

 

[Fruitloop]

Gould may have written some pop-science, but his final work is extremely serious, ground-breaking stuff, and it finally buries Darwinism. Its a funny thing but I've yet to encounter a Darwinist who's read it. Anyone?

Darwinism has been dead for a century now.

 

[gorski]

Crikey, someone needs to alert the "scientific community"...

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, we've seen countless time they are not repeatable, so...

Physics has no symmetries? Your Nobel prize awaits....

As for ontological stuff: that doesn't hold water in today's Philosophy, sorry... We left metaphysics behind...

Are you doing comedy now or something?

 

[phildwyer]

Darwinism has been dead for a century now.

If only that were true. Unfortunately however such departures from Darwin as have been made have generally taken the form of an intensification of his erroneous assumptions (monocausality, unidirectionalism, reductionism), a la Dawkins.

And if you ask an averagely-educated person in the British street, s/he will tell you that Darwin discovered evolution, and that he was right in everything he said. S/he will probably also say that anyone who thinks Darwin was wrong is a nutter. I know this from my experience on these boards.