Prominent IDist a Darwinist?
by Bilbo"The success of Darwin's theory…stems from the manner in which Darwin's theory has been successfully used to guide research and generate insights into biology. Such research and insights have, in turn, generated much circumstancial evidence that supports the Darwinian thesis." (Mike Gene in his book, The Design Matrix; a Consilience of Clues, p.26).
"Could we please dispense with any patronizing nonsense about Darwin being less than the messiah of a materialistic religion that pretends to find its justification in science. If Darwin was not the alpha and omega of evolution, then he was either a knave or a fool or a madman. Darwin did not leave us any other options. He did not intend to." (William Dembski, Uncommon Descent,)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/olivia-judson-lets-not-call-w hat-were-doing-darwinism/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/olivia-judson-lets-not-call-w hat-were-doing-darwinism/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/olivia-judson-lets-not-call-w hat-were-doing-darwinism
Good thing Mike left when he did, or we would have to stone him (no, not the Bob Dylan kind of stone, Uncle Rock).
For the benefit of any Theistic Evolutionists that might be lurking amongst us. Or any just plain ol' Darwinists.
Interesting…when I first posted the link to Dembski's article, it worked just fine. Now there's a space between the 'w' and 'hat', which produces an error. And I can't seem to be able to fix it. Wonder how that happened. Couldn't be Dave Scot could it?
July 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Somebody else want to try copying a link to Dembski's article?
Comment by Bilbo — July 25, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
X
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Here ya go.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 25, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Bilbo, I'm not sure what the point of quoting Dembski is here. From the quote it seems he is not being supportive of Darwin at all. Am I missing something?
As for Mike's quote, seems there has been a fair amount of recent discussion about the fact that the truthfulness or falsity of Darwin's ideas would make very little difference in guiding biological research. It just simply isn't relevant to the vast majority of applied biology. Sure, finch beaks change; sure, populations of insects become resistant to insecticide. How would biological research change sans Darwin? Other than, of course, being willing to look for more interesting and fruitful answers, which would be a wonderfully good thing . . .
Comment by Eric Anderson — July 25, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Off-topic, mostly because I don't know what the topic is supposed to be.Wow! That's just astounding. I mean "messiah of a materialistic religion", "the alpha and omega of evolution". That must be legend at AtBC.
Thanks, Bilbo.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Hi Bilbo,
) … and I'd rather refer to my own position as evolutionary creationism rather thant TE …
Well, I guess I'm one of those "TE lurkers" you are referring to .. although I think I have commented on a couple of occaisons over the last 6 months (how many comments do you need to make before losing the title of lurker
The two quotes above are a great Juxtaposition … it really shows how completely marginalized Mr. Dembski has become. Mike on the other hand, has demonstrated measured responses, and a willingness to go whereever he believes the evidence will lead him (although my own position is the evidence for Darwin's thesis is much more than circumstancial). Which one of these two IDists do you think will provoke more thought among those who do not share the ID view?
Comment by sdmartinca — July 26, 2008 @ 8:45 am
July 26th, 2008 at 9:42 am
sdmartinca:
Great point. I think it applies equally to ID critics. Which critics do you think will be better received: those who make rational, civil responses or those who troll, substitute socks for honesty and replace reason with nastiness?
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 9:42 am
July 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Is Dembski's comment completely off?
Sure, it doesn't account for everyone who accepts Darwinian processes, insights,….
But of course there are some very prominent materialistic biologists that appear to hold Darwin to a level of adoration that falls within the scope of what Dembski was refering to.
Comment by Doug — July 26, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Bradford: I agree. It obviously cuts both ways.
Doug: I think Dembski's comment is completely unfair to Darwin. To say that Darwin is a materialist messiah is plain silly. Maybe he's confusing Darwin and Dawkins? Dawkins et al will of course try to claim Darwin as a messiah for their own religion, but that is hardly Darwin's fault. As a Christian, I don't think I have to let Dawkins frame the story for me.
Comment by sdmartinca — July 26, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I took the weekend off. Chunk and Korn, thanks for the links. Dembski was responding to Olivia Judson, who had suggested in a NY Times op ed that even though Darwin's idea of natural selection was the "cornerstone" of evolutinary theory, since evolutionary theory has advanced so much, we should probably use some other term besides "Darwinism." Dembski took this as an attempt to shield present evolutionary theory from criticisms by distancing it from Darwin. And I guess you can see what he thinks about Darwin.
From what I can tell, Mike Gene is a neo-Darwinist who suspects that the original cells were designed and front-loaded with information that would exploit Darwinian processes (random mutation + natural selection). And Mike isn't afraid to give Darwin credit. So if Dembski's criticism is true, then I guess Mike is guilty of following a false Messiah.
I wonder if Dembski thinks that Sun Myung Moon is the true Messiah? He co-authored a book with Jonathan Wells, who does believe Moon is the Messiah.
Further, Michael Behe believes in two of Darwin's pillars of evolution: common descent and natural selection. And Behe believes that random mutation can account for how species originate, perhaps even Genera, Families, and Orders. So should Behe be termed a semi-heretic? Perhaps that was why this pillar of the ID movement was expelled from the movie, Expelled.
Comment by Bilbo — July 28, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Bilbo, I enjoy many of your posts, but unfortunately it seems you're trying to create something out of nothing. Might Dembski be accused of some hyperbole? Perhaps. I know Dembski is a favorite whipping-boy of folks on this blog, so at the risk of defending Dembski for a bit, let's note that, after all, it was Darwin who made it possible for Dawkins to be intellectually fulfilled. And there are plenty of others who also follow Darwin like modern-day disciples. Shoot, we've even got a full blown Darwin Day.
Further, I don't think you will find Dembski saying that Darwin was completely wrong about everything. Finch beaks and other minor microevolutionary changes are totally non-controversial. Further, you are implying that Mike Behe (and probably the other Mike) give Darwin a lot more credit than Behe actually does. Behe is willing to go with common descent and natural selection — but it is quite clear in his writings that he doesn't think that buys you much in terms of what is needed.
Thus, your attempt to paint a deep gulf between the positions of Dembski and the Mikes is based on two quotes that address different issues: (i) the areas of scientific inquiry where Darwin got it right (to whatever extent that may be); and (ii) the cultural impact of Darwin for the materialist. You are not accurately portraying the full positions, and thus it is a bit too facile to cast one quote as being wildly in conflict with the other.
Comment by Eric Anderson — July 28, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
BTW, still wondering about Mike Gene's quote above:
"Darwin's theory has been successfully used to guide research and generate insights into biology. Such research and insights have, in turn, generated much circumstancial evidence that supports the Darwinian thesis."
What great research and insights have come from Darwin's ideas? What new research evidence supports the Darwinian thesis? Are we talking about finch beaks here? If so, it may support limited oscillation events within strict boundaries, but certainly not the larger "Darwinian thesis." Or are we talking about lab research? Most everything from the lab suggest that organismal boundaries are pretty tightly controlled, which not only does not support Darwin, but is entirely anathema to the "Darwininan thesis." The longest-running evolutionary lab expirement is being undertaken by Lenski et al., with tens of thousands of generations to work on "evolving" organisms under extreme pressure. And what has it produced? Certainly not "much circumstancial evidence that supports the Darwinian thesis." Indeed, the best interpretation of the results so far seems to be that things simply don't happen as Darwin guessed.
I can't help but feeling that Mike's quote is a gratuitious — and totally unnecessary — nod in the direction of Darwin. It is a good debating tactic (accept as much as you can of the reigning paradigm and focus the debate on the real points you want to hit), but it sure doesn't seem like an accurate description of the state of "Darwinian-inspired" research over the past century and a half . . .
Most biology, certainly most applied biology, proceeds very nicely, thank you very much, without any need at all to reference Darwin's nineteenth century ideas.
Comment by Eric Anderson — July 28, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Pleased to see you agree with Ms Judson. Darwin's theory has been developed far beyond the concepts he first espoused. Physicists do not refer to themselves as Newtonists or Einsteinists. Scientific theories are not religious tablets, they are provisional and subject to modification in the light of new evidence.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Eric, certainly Darwin's theory has been used to bolster philosophical materialism. However, there are many, many Theistic Evolutionists who think Darwin got it right, but who still believe in God. By not only branding Darwin as the Messiah of a materialistic religion, but as one who intended to be that, Dembski in effect is saying that all Theistic Evolutionists are in a religiously compromised position. And I think they would be right to be offended by Dembski's remarks. I know of one professor of biology who responded to Dembski in just such an offended manner, and was banned, even though there was no use of inappropriate language.
Further, Dembski is implying that the only reason atheistic evolutionists buy into Darwin is to bolster their philosophy, an insult to them.
I'm not quote-mining either of the Mikes. It seems pretty clear that Mike Gene buys into Darwin's theory. But he also buys into Behe's argument from Irreducible Complexity. I suspect that he suspects that front-loading at the origin of life would help explain Irreducible Complexity.
And in his book, The Edge of Evolution, Behe has a diagram showing that random mutation (contingency) can account for at least life up to the species level, if not further up. That would mean that our own species could be accounted for by random mutation from the ancestor of our genus. That's a lot to admit in the Christian world, where we are supposed to be purposely designed in God's image. In my opinion, it's no accident that Behe wasn't in the movie Expelled.
As to the evidence for Darwinian evolution: beats me. I'm just a layperson, looking from the sidelines.
Comment by Bilbo — July 28, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Eric Andesron,
Are you the same Anderson posting in the echo chamber, Uncommon Descent? I see Bob O'Hara has been explaining thing for you. However, it seems he is the final rational poster to be expelled from Dembski's playground.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Do you mean this, Bilbo? If you want to have a look at evidence, I am sure there a several working scientists who could spare you a little time at AtBC and point you on the right track.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I know this is the result of a typing error but I'm not sure what you meant to say. Could you clarify it?
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Things not thing. Maybe this link will clarify.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Alan Fox:
And which of Darwin's original observations is at issue here? That there is variation in populations? That if your variation serves to keep you alive long enough, you'll probably breed? I see nothing whatsoever controversial about variation-selection as broadly-defined mechanisms of uber-evolution. People had been breeding livestock and dogs for thousands of years already.
What IS at issue, seems to me, is the true randomness of heritable adaptive variation (as opposed to disease/damage) and the true pertinence of the Cosmic Wheel of Karma (selection). It would seem that the neo-lamarckian propensities of epigenetics and targeted mutations/genome rearrangements, as well as the non-applicability of selection to such a large pool of epigenetic and targeted gene changes makes the original Darwinian (and later All-Holy Neodarwinian Orthodoxy) platitudes out to be the pablum they truly are. They don't explain evolution, they were a pretty fair guess from a philosophical point of view a century and a half ago while cells were just little bags of goo.
Nobody denies accidents happen. Go ahead and sneer at that lead-lined wall around the instrument station at your local accelerator. Your cells' DNA (and your on-duty HP) will hate you for it, but you can't get cancer if you don't believe in it, right? Nobody denies that the fit and healthy have a better chance of reproducing themselves than the sickly and weak. And that if an asteroid destroys everything within a thousand miles of your village, "fit" and "sickly" don't mean anything at all to future generations that never happen.
We know more now, are learning yet more. It's okay to bury Darwin's moldy corpse. Build him a statue (…oh. They already did). Teach his contribution as history, which it is. But for goodness' sake, retire that bag of bones from the 'Culture War'! The appeal to BigBeard is well past its prime.
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I believe his observations of barnacles, beetles etc were meticulous. Or do mean his musings on inheritance, such as his idea of the gemmule? That was one of his ideas that has not stood the test of time.
Who disputes this?
If you mean, some variants are statistically more likely to have offspring than other variants, is this disputed?
OK (I think) I find the flowery language a little vague, sorry.
Well, yes.
Well, you could refute the claim that mutation is an unpredictable process by predicting one and then showing it occurring as per prediction, I guess.
A lethal mutation is no different in kind from a neutral or beneficial one, and any benefit will only show if it proves to have some benefit to a particular organism in relation to its current niche.
You lost me again with the flowery phrases
?
What don't? pablums?
Which is why noöne is suggesting we should be using 150 year old ideas, when there have been so many scientific discoveries since.
OK
I am very aware that there are no safe limits in exposure to radioactivity. the point being…
I assume this question is rhetorical
OK
OK, dinosaurs were pretty successful, but they weren't geared up for that pesky asteroid.
OK
I think they already did, possibly before the mould got too bad.
OK
OK
You lost me again with the flowery language.
PS
My comment was directed to Bilbo.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Bilbo wrote:
Close, but not quite. The reasoning is precisely the other way: Behe's diagram is primarily intended to show how far down design extends. He is willing to go on public record that he believes design extends down to at least the Class level. Then he shows orders, families and genera as the "tentative edge of random evolution." Then he has a lower section titled "contingency in biology, which goes from "environmental accidents" to species. Behe has certainly not shown, nor do I believe he intends to assert, that all species are the result of random mutation. He is willing to assume that this is the case, as it doesn't impact his major argument or contribution, which is, as he says on the previous page, that "design extends into biology at least to the level of the major classes of vertebrates, perhaps further." That is the purpose of his diagram and consistent with his entire position. There is a nuanced distinction here.
I'm not aware that Behe has asserted this. Certainly no-one has ever come close to demonstrating this to be the case. As it stands now, this is little more than an article of faith some would like to be true.
Comment by Eric Anderson — July 28, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Alan Fox:
Sorry. You aren't used to my translations. I'll try to make it simpler in the future.
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Why do you still call it Darwin's theory then? Maybe it would be more correct to say that it has been "replaced" by something? If not, then perhaps there is still something "Darwinian" about it all. Just curious . . .
But the real point is this: Dembski is talking about the cultural aspect of reverence for Darwin. Mike is talking about the science itself. Two quotes. Two different subjects.
Look, I don't agree with everything Dembski does or says, but I find the present attempt to paint him as wildly in opposition to otherwise rational individuals to be pretty strained.
Comment by Eric Anderson — July 28, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Because he was first to publish. Newton's theory of motion was not replaced by Einsteins relativity. It is still good enough for space shots. Also Darwin's theory is Darwin's theory. Later developments in genetics and molecular biology have produced the current theories of evolution.
Demsbki does not need anyone else to paint him. His behaviour over the last few years has destroyed any credibility he may have once had in some circles. Waterloo, anyone?
Comment by Alan Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Unfortunately, Alan, you may be quite right about this.
I'm happy to let Dembski make his case in more serious writings and then see what can be gleaned — if he has good arguments about the science and the evidence for design I'm willing to consider his arguments, regardless of any culture war baggage some may see. I guess I try not to get too bogged down over what anyone does on their own personal blog, although you are probably right that there has been some unfortunate fallout.
Comment by Eric Anderson — July 28, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
That's just a little too hypocritical is it not Alan? Your heroes could teach Dembski many things about distasteful behavior. Of course the embarrassments usually end up plastered on bathroom walls. Oh that terrible Dembski. What a crock.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Not that I want to defend Dembski's more polemic rants, but it seems to me that some neglect the full context of his remarks.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 28, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Too bad C.S. Lewis' well spoken speech is so utter wrong. I can very easily claim Jesus was simply a great human teacher and I don't really give a flip who finds that patronizing. I could go so far as to claim Jesus' disciples simply lied about all the miracles he performed in order to advance their own religious authority. Perhaps they understood these tales to be metaphor and were simply doing what the Catholic church later became rather well know for, incorporating local pagan traditions into their own traditions in order to spread their critically important message of peace of love.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 28, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Todd:
You should care about logical consistency. If Jesus claimed to be God and taught with the authority that implies and he was a mere mortal then he was a charlatan whose teachings were a fraud. The contention that such an individual is great or a great teacher mocks the proponent of that view.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Hi Todd,
On the face of it, you are right (and it's a shame that the quote is often used as if he's making a broader argument than he actually is) - but the point Lewis is making (in the greater context of the chapter) is a valid one - namely that it is rather silly to call Jesus a great moral teacher and pay no attention to the things he's actually teaching. Like it or not, he spoke with inconceivable hubris as if he himself had authority over everything - even the law of God.
Put differently, Jesus himself is at the core of the message of Jesus, and while you might not believe he is God (not believing in God and all), one can't simply patronize him as a great teacher without acknowledging this aspect of his teaching. That's Lewis' point.
Dembski, as far as I can tell, was making fun of Darwinist worship of Darwin, by reframing the quote. I don't know how constructive that is, but I suppose he thought it was funny…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 29, 2008 @ 12:15 am
July 29th, 2008 at 12:29 am
When did Jesus ever claim to be god? I must have missed that bible verse. He claims to be the son of god a lot, but the bible seems to place a lot of people into that category:
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
~ Matthew 5:9
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
~ Gal 3:26
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
~Rom 8:14
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
~ John 1:12
I could accept the charlatan theory too, but he might have been a very well intentioned charlatan.
I'm also perfectly willing to mock nearly anyone, myself included.
Still, Jesus cannot be held accountable for what his friends did after his death. Does a great teacher become a charlatan if after his death someone claims that teacher performed miracles and was actually god? His followers certainly had motive to exaggerate their accounts of Jesus, the more grand the story the greater their personal religious authority.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 29, 2008 @ 12:29 am
July 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
John 8:58
Comment by chunkdz — July 29, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
John 8:48-59
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I started an open thread for all of you who want to discuss what Jesus claimed about himself. If I find any more comments about that subject here, I will delete them.
Comment by Bilbo — July 29, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
When I commented on the evidence for Darwinian evolution, perhaps I gave the wrong impression. I think we can agree that common descent is a fact. I think we can agree that random mutation takes place, and that natural selection acts upon it. The question is how much of common descent can be explained by that, and how much can be explained by other mechanisms that have been discovered since, or how much can best be explained by a designer. On those issues I stand on the sidelines and wait to see who wins.
Comment by Bilbo — July 29, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
As to the question of what Behe believes randomness can accomplish, from his diagram it's clear that he believes that it can accomplish the origination of new species, otherwise he would have delegated it to the "tentative" category, along with Orders, Families, and Genera.
My beef with Dembski — and let me say again that I have a great deal of admiration for his work on attempting to establish a mathematical boundary for intelligent design — is that he has taken a idealogical position against Darwinian evolution (or its present descendants), seeing it as a secular religion. This means that anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution is — consciously or not — advocating for this secular religion. The question of empirical evidence has taken a back seat. Whoa to those who follow Darwin. Meanwhile, irony of ironies, Dembski is in league with a man who does worship a false messiah. Who'd a thunk it?
Comment by Bilbo — July 29, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Bradford, having no dog in this fight, regard me as a spectator who cannot resist shouting comments from the audience from time to time. Not sure where you are detecting hypocrisy, though.
Perhaps, but a number of posters at AtBC have been summarily banned at UD, or more often silently banned merely for disagreeing with the current party line. It does make people irritable.
I think it is important to document the way moderation is undertaken at UD. It is a strong indicator of the level of Dembski's integrity.
I don't think Dembski is the devil incarnate, he is probably a model husband and father. It is his continuing promotion of his bankrupt attempts disprove evolution mathematically that I find distasteful.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 30, 2008 @ 9:27 am
July 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Alan Fox:
LOL!!! My goodness, Alan. Is your faith so insecure? If Dembski can disprove evolution mathematically, then surely evolution deserves to be debunked for its mathematical weakness. If it's not weak, then Dembski's quest will amount to nothing more than tilting at windmills, and is no skin off anybody's teeth.
Though by your phrasing, it's not difficult to see that your mind portrays the challenge as something to be concerned about. I mean, "evolution" isn't very controversial, even among true, hard case Creationists. Change happens over time, there is variation in populations and differential reproductive success. Those things are 'given', the challenge is to the gratuitous adjectives applied to the only two mechanisms allowed under Neodarwinian Orthodoxy, and the pretense that RM-NS is all there is.
It's entirely uncontroversial that THAT is a crock of you-know-what these days, even in the hallowed halls of orthodox cathedrals. Why, scientists have been discussing the notion that Darwin should be shelved to history for awhile now, just so the idea of biological evolution wouldn't be stuck in such an easily-challengeable box.
Dissent may be "distasteful" to the authoritarian mindset, but that's not likely to stop dissenters from dissenting. It's best not to get all bent out of shape by the natural order of science and scientific progress. It was never invented to be religion, after all. Corruption did that to what was once a very promising open framework.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2008 @ 10:24 am
July 30th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
So I take it we all agree that if Dembski wants to wage war against Darwin's theory (under whatever name it goes by, or whatever corrections it has received) on the basis that it is a false religion, then in order to be consistent, he should at least denounce Jonathan Wells' false religion?
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Oh…to Eric Anderson:
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I've never seen anyone other than creations claim that "RM-NS" is all there is. This is your favorite strawman, but its getting a bit old and moldy.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 30, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
All religions are false religions, but consistency with reality has never been an important goal for any creationist. I think he should continue to be obviously absurd and inconsistent.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 30, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Oh, honey. I knew evolution was way more than RM-NS way back before I took Bio-II in high school, likely before you were born. Hunted fossils, dissected frogs, cats and pigs (in ascending order), had a lot of fun. But then, my sister and I did blow out the basement windows (a first on our block!) with a put-together chemistry set (Dad worked where there were lots of labs)… 5th and 6th grade, we were…
It was honestly not until I encountered this 'Culture War' and ongoing ridiculous never-ending debates that I ever saw it asserted, absolutely and in b&w, that RM-NS was the final and fully sufficient explanation for everything evolutionary/biological. It wasn't anyone who knew better making such claims. And it wasn't the Creationists (though I didn't pay much attention to them, they might have been complaining about what I encountered). It rather quickly dawned on me that the asserters were either playing scientists on the internet (but don't know much about it), or had staked something a lot more important to them than just what the average American thinks about it. The only thing besides family I've ever seen be that important to anyone is metaphysics.
From your postings I have had the steady impression that you know better. But this doesn't mean I haven't encountered Darwin-Defenders from your side of the aisle ignorantly insisting that RM-NS is all there is (ignore the huge pile of research data behind the curtain…). I lost count years ago.
Oddly, your knowledge that variation may not be primarily random, and selection doesn't often apply, hasn't altered your stereotypes any. I have seen no indication that you'd ever accept that some of us know better too, and recognize WHAT we are arguing about. We're all just "Creo-bots" to you, we all look the same, act the same, believe the same, speak the same…
Sometimes your stereotypes are blinding. And sometimes your defenses are positively pubescent. This is one of those times.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 2:41 am
Until his mathematical model bears some relation to the current theory, he can't. Yet he doesn't seem to listen to anyone pointing that out.
Everyone's a mindreader:roll:
Never seen anyone claim this recently.
You were going to simplify the language in future comments. It isn't working for me:???:
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 2:41 am
July 31st, 2008 at 2:44 am
I certainly get the impression that Dembski's motivation is religious plus commercial.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 2:44 am
July 31st, 2008 at 7:03 am
Alan Fox:
When I read comments like this I wonder if the commenter would also label best selling authors of popular science books and those who answer the question, is there a God- in the negative, as similarly motivated. There are a number of individuals who might fit this description and I do not see their motives questioned by ID critics.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2008 @ 7:03 am
July 31st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Alan Fox:
I'm not the one who came here to express distaste about Dembski's attempts to "disprove evolution" mathematically. That would be you, and it demonstrates concern. Since I am not concerned about anybody's attempts to falsify any scientific theory out there (it's part of what science DOES, you know), I mentioned it. I don't share your concern.
Huh. I do not see that you 'never' encountering this claim 'recently' has anything to do with when or how often I've encountered this claim, or from whom. Is this supposed to somehow negate my own experience?
It's not that hard, Alan. Let's parse…
Dissent may be "distasteful" to the authoritarian mindset, but that's not likely to stop dissenters from dissenting.
Translation: People who dissent from 'orthodoxy' generally don't care that 'orthodoxy' doesn't like it.
Or, even simpler…
Tough titty.
It's best not to get all bent out of shape by the natural order of science and scientific progress. It was never invented to be religion, after all.
Translation: Science is all about provisional theories and progressive refinement (change, directional evolution, increasing knowledge). Getting upset about the nature of science is a waste of time and energy. Science is not religion, was never invented to BE religion.
Or, even simpler…
Calm down. The sky is not falling.
Corruption did that to what was once a very promising open framework.
Translation: Whenever the personal egos, fame, fortune and power of any scientist or group of scientists in any generation insists that their provisional theoretics are carved in stone and must not be violated, science has been corrupted. [insert prime example here].
Or, even simpler…
"Neodarwinian Orthodoxy" is a corruption of science.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 10:35 am
July 31st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Last Saturday evening, in the local town square, I was watching folk dancing displays (cultural exchange stuff that the regional council likes to lay on in the tourist season) from China, North Ossetia and Cuba. The Cubans had a very lively band and singers as accompaniment, and I enjoyed their performance. Afterwards my wife was approached by a young Cuban dancer and offered a CD of, my wife was assured, music like we had just heard, so she bought it. It turned out to be a blank CD.
I don't begrudge anyone profiting from a performance, a book or whatever. I am not so happy to finance dishonesty.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 11:57 am
July 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I included the word bankrupt because Demsbki has never acknowledged the considerable amount of criticism of his work, but continues blithely on as if his critics did not exist.
Well, if I thought the issue important, I might suggest that, as you made the claim (I paraphrase)that Darwinists(?) state RM + NS is all there is, you might be able to cite an example. Burden of proof and all that.
Nonsense. Truth will out. If Demsbki had the germ of a real scientific idea, it would be unstoppable.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Off-topicAs putting your own music on a CD doesn't cost anything, I would suspect a copy error. I would contact the band.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Who is forced to buy books?
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Off topic.
I am obviously much more of a cynic than you, Zachriel. Your advice, while fine in principle, would be difficult to implement, as the folk troops are touring and only in one town for one night. The show was free* so it was no great loss.
*No such thing as a free show. My taxes helped pay for it.:wink:
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Alan Fox:
Then what in the world are you so het up about? Honestly, Alan. It looks like you spend way too much time leaping to erroneous conclusions designed to elicit the greatest amount of stress response, for trifles. Like the blank CD. That blank CD cost money - recording it cost nothing. Yet you decided your wife was ripped off and got mad about it.
This sort of outlook is what leads to high blood pressure and other serious health problems, you know. As I said, calm down. The sky is not falling.
Fortunately, the issue isn't important at all. It's just me saying I have encountered the assertion, and where it's come from. You'd be completely wasting your life spending your days and nights on the internet calling people liars whenever they say something you don't like. Which, considering your penchant for conclusion-leaping, would happen a lot.
There are no legitimate orthodoxies in science. There is provisional theory, attempts at falsification, and occasional dramatic revolutions of knowledge. Science is not about big-t "Truth," and never claimed to be.
Then you've nothing to worry about.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
People following a particular career may need to buy specific reference books, but, on the whole, book buying is voluntary.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
There you go with the mind reading again. When my wife announced she couldn't play the CD and having confirmed it was blank, I actually laughed. (A little ruefully, admittedly) I didn't begrudge a few euros, considering the state of the Cuban economy.
I know.
Comment by Alan Fox — July 31, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
But consistency within one's religion would be nice. Dembski's brand of Christianity would say that Sun Myung Moon is a false messiah. And it would probably paint Moon as a worse danger than Darwinism.
The question nobody has asked me is, If the makers of Expelled were concerned to get Behe out of the picture, because his take on Darwin was too positive, why would they include Wells, risking that Christians would find out that he's a Moonie?
I think the answer is in the dictum, Follow the Money. Moon is at least a multi-millionaire, if not a multi-billionaire. I don't know this, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Discovery Institute gets a lot of its funding from him. (Is there a way to find out?) Perhaps even the movie got a lot of its funds from him, but probably with the proviso that his boy (Wells) gets a part in it. I stress that this is all just speculation on my part. But I find it intriguing.
Comment by Bilbo — July 31, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
So the fact that you know that nobody believes in "RM-NS is all their is" coupled with the fact you are the only one on this forum who constantly talks about "people who think RM-NS is all there is" means that I am guilt of using blinding stereotypes. Hum, amazing logic. If Joy uses a stereotype it apparently proves that I am guilty of using stereotypes. I guess Joy thinks that I am she?
I'll go beyond "recently". Personally I've never encountered this claim from anyone other than Joy, who also claims she has never believed it. But then again I'm new to this whole dance.
I agree with this, but it is only critics like you who claim there is an orthodoxy. The existence of conspiracy theorists does not imply the existence of a conspiracy.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 31, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Todd B.:
Perhaps you don't keep up with the literature or the science press. Almost daily something comes in that is reported (or is asserted, in appendices or copy) as 'challenging'…
Darwinian Orthodoxy, Neo-darwinian Orthodoxy, plain old orthodoxy, the "central dogma" or various "tenets" associated, or is just labled heretical. Presumably TO the orthodoxy's dogma and tenets. It all comes from actual scientists, reviewers who are scientists, or science writers and journalists.
Among the Culture Warriors who haunt the internet, I have noted that the purists try to assert selection as the primary mechanism of evolution. Even in the face of recently understood neutrality and even strict conservation of apparently pointless variations. And despite increasing incoming evidence that genomes were front-loaded eons ago toward pretty much what we see around us today. You can't just do a simple calculation on the relative birth and death rates in any given series of generations to understand evolution. Very little of the entirely unique DNA in any given generation plays a significant role in evolution, beyond that which was apparently front-loaded in the beginning. As my first great art teacher once told me, everything else is shading and perspective.
Others admit that the origin end of the RM-NS equation might not be so random after all. Variation proceeds by a number of clever mechanisms, not limited to random oxidative or ionizing accidents of life that damage DNA (which mostly just effect health). Radiating fruit flies never turned a fruit fly into anything but a deformed fruit fly.
Add epigenetics and including viral, retroviral and bacterial 'borrowings' plus genomic duplications and rearrangements quite drastic (but not deadly) and pretty soon you're talking about something a lot more dynamic and teleologically-oriented that "Random Mutation" suggests. Statistical randomness in populations is not the same thing as causal randomness. Too many Culture Warriors don't seem to understand this. Weird.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
What amazes me is that you always use examples that prove there is no orthodoxy to prove there is an orthodoxy. All these articles citing challenges to current understanding are getting published in main stream journals. In fact challenging results are favored because they are more interesting, more exciting. If people were clinging to an outdated orthodoxy as you constantly falsely claim then there wouldn't be so many articles counter to that "orthodoxy" that make it past peer review. Amazing claims require amazing evidence so a lot of your favorite pet theories might not get much support. You incorrectly mistake resistance to unfounded ideas with resistance to change.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 31, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Todd B.:
Excuse me? Who was it who asserted just seven posts ago in this very thread that…
"There are no legitimate orthodoxies in science."?
It may be an in-joke among working biologists who actually publish research, but I have said I've encountered Culture Warriors pretending to be working biologists (some actually are working biologists) who have asserted this orthodoxy to me and others on message boards and blogs a lot like this one. They do not appear to take it as lightly as the working in-joke would suppose. It's part of their metaphysics, and as such is artificially placed on an inviolate level in their minds. Psychology.
Besides, someone with your superior intelligence wouldn't use words like "never" or "always" when trying to read other people's minds and motives. You'd know that absolutes are too easily falsified. Very sloppy.
No, I don't. I have asserted repeatedly for all the years I've been participating in these debates that science isn't about big-t truth, its theories are entirely provisional, and its job is to follow the evidence. In addition to mentioning here and there that there are no legitimate orthodoxies in science.
I know what science is and what it does, Todd. You're just engaging in off-topic distraction. The subject of this thread is not Joy. It's whether ID looks like Darwinism, and Dembski's statement about Darwinism looking like religion.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 6:23 pm