“Let me see if I understand,” I said to my daughter’s high school biology teacher. “The human eye is the evolutionary product of a light-sensitive spot on the skin. Is that right?”
“Right,” she said.
“And by evolution, you mean a mindless, random process that didn’t really have an end in mind. In other words, there was no “designer” for the eye or the body for that matter. Am I getting that right?”
“Right again,” she replied.
But how could an undirected process produce such highly functional complexity, I wondered aloud. She gave me a look that said, “you really don’t have the time or, probably, the background to understand, so do we really have to go there?”
We did, and I persisted, trying another tack that I had been wondering about for a while.
“Okay, well let me ask you just a few questions” I countered. “Would you agree that evolution as you understand it is a gradual process of adaptation over time, where changes that are advantageous accumulate?”
“Yes,” came her quick reply.
“Would you agree that over time these gradual adaptations would lead to the development of complex systems, such as organ systems?”
“Yes, that makes sense,” she said.
“Would you also agree,” I pressed, “that, generally speaking, the more complex the system, the longer it would take for these gradual adaptations to evolve so that a complex system would take longer to evolve than a less complex system?”
“Yes.” The response was a bit slower, more thoughtful.
Shifting gears a bit, I asked, “In the field of human biology, would you agree that generally speaking, the human female reproductive system is considerably more complex than its male counterpart?”
“I’m not sure what you mean,” she queried.
“Well,” I started, “the male half of the equation involves dividing cells to get to 23 chromosomes and providing a, uh, delivery mechanism. The female system involves the production of eggs, the delivery of the eggs to a specific location, the means for implantation, and if that occurs, the creation of a placenta that is fine-tuned to support the development of the life that is growing. The whole system must work in conjunction with the woman’s body, provide for correction of any mistakes occurring to minimize miscarriages, screen the fetus from harmful substances in the woman’s blood, connect the fetus to the mother by means of a two-way umbilical cord, and provide a method for the baby to be safely delivered into the world. More amazingly, the two systems must somehow recognize each other and work together, so that the 23 chromosomes from each half form a single cell that has the complete instructions for a new human life to begin. This seems like a pretty complex, interconnected, and interdependent system requiring multiple components to work just right. And yet it does work right millions and millions of times.”
“I suppose there’s something to that, but” she hesitated, “what’s your point?” Her tone matched her more serious expression.
“Just this,” I responded. “What exactly were all those men doing generation after generation waiting for the first fully functional female to evolve?”
She stared at me, no doubt wondering whether I was trying to mock her. But, though my question was of course facetious, I wanted to know where my logic was flawed. After all, the premises seem valid. If designed, it makes perfect sense that God could create a system in which some parts are more complex than others, and still have them work together for a purpose. But how could mammalian sexual reproduction – involving separate male and female individuals -ever evolve simultaneously? I wanted to know where that very first human male and very first human female came from. She took a deep breath and began her answer…. and it didn’t have anything to do with God.
“Well, it didn’t work that way,” she said. “Evolution occurred gradually, over time, as the predecessors to humans slowly began to change.”
“Fair enough,” I responded. “So, tell me about that first pair of monkeys, the very first male and female monkey from which you say we evolved.”
“Well,” she began, formulating her thoughts, “it didn’t work that way.” I gave her a quizzical look and she continued. “Those predecessors also evolved slowly, over time, from still more primitive forms of life.”
I was patient. “Like what?” I asked. I don’t think anyone had pressed her for answers like this, but after all I wasn’t worried about getting a grade. My daughter, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t be too thrilled about dad’s efforts at higher learning. Luckily, she wasn’t nearby.
In answer, the teacher started to
explain that monkeys had evolved from still lower forms of life. It was a
long process with smaller animals making adaptations, adding features,
becoming larger. It all sounded quite vague and fuzzy, as she painted
the picture of a planet teeming with life of various kinds, widely
dispersed, and being driven by this engine of evolution.
I
tried to stay on track with her. Then she made the jump that I was
expecting – she started talking about life emerging from the primitive
seas. Single-celled life forms that began to replicate and pass their
DNA on to the next generation. She paused when she saw me starting to
shake my head.
“Wait a sec,” I said. “You’re getting ahead of me, or perhaps more precisely, you’re moving back too far. I’ll grant you that life first began in the seas, but even if I grant you the ‘primordial soup’ theory, you’re still making quite a jump. What I want to focus on are the first male and female land mammals. If we wind the clock back, there must be a point on the early Earth in which there are no mammals walking the land. None whatsoever. Whatever life exists, it hasn’t yet evolved to sexually reproducing, warm-blooded mammals. Before that point, maybe there’s life in the sea, but the land is barren; after that point, the land begins to get populated. You with me?”
She nodded.
“I’d like to know what model science has to explain how that first began. That first couple.”
She was still formulating an answer, so I pressed on. “I can understand that once you have thousands of fully functioning mammals that over time they may begin to change, especially if subjected to some environmental challenge. That makes perfect sense, whether it is directed by the genes, as I believe was designed into them, or whether it’s a random process. But tell me how the first pair appeared on the land.”
https://crossexamined.org/problems-with-evolutionary-biology
147 comments:
Awesome!
Some quick questions:
Are you saying that "evolution theory as espoused by scientists seems so complicated as to be unlikely... and therefore, I think God creating humans fully intact, with eyes invented by God (same for the animals, too, of course) in a blink is the more rational explanation and it's what I believe..."?
Or, are you saying, "Both theories - evolution and God-magic (ie, God blinking and creating existing species intact as an act of will) - are difficult (impossible) to prove... therefore, we should treat them as equally likely..."?
...or some other option?
I'm not judging, just asking.
Also, how old do you think the earth is? Do you think scientific explanation and consensus on an ancient cosmos and earth are the most likely? Almost definitely correct? Or do you think an ancient cosmos (science) is equally as likely as a young earth theory (creationism, at least some flavors of it)? Or do you think that YE theory is the most likely?
Since you're bringing up science, these seem to be on topic to me.
For what it's worth, when I read commentary like this, what it SOUNDS like the person is actually saying is, "I don't understand how evolutionary science makes any sense at all... and since I don't understand it, it can't be true/should not be considered as likely..."
Not saying that's what you're saying. Just that these sorts of commentaries tend to sound a bit anti-science-y and do so based upon a lack of understanding, not a rebuttal based on data.
"Are you saying that "evolution theory as espoused by scientists seems so complicated as to be unlikely... and therefore, I think God creating humans fully intact, with eyes invented by God (same for the animals, too, of course) in a blink is the more rational explanation and it's what I believe..."?"
1. Given the fact that the statistical chance of even the most basic building block of life indicates that it's highly unlikely, I'd say that it's the science of statistical probability speaking not me.
2. I'm saying that I agree with scientists that the Big Bang cosmology is the best option.
3. I'm quoting someone who asked a number of questions to a biology teacher who was unable to provide answer to those questions, can you provide answers to those questions?
4. Yes, I believe that God "spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm."
5. I believe that since this was your first response, that it's likely that you have no good answers, nor any source of good answers to the questions and that you've decided to attack the orthodox Christian belief that God created ex nihlo.
"Or, are you saying, "Both theories - evolution and God-magic (ie, God blinking and creating existing species intact as an act of will) - are difficult (impossible) to prove... therefore, we should treat them as equally likely..."? ...or some other option?"
No, I'm not saying either of those things.
"Also, how old do you think the earth is?"
As I've never seen anyone provide a precise answer, I wouldn't speak dogmatically to this question. I believe in a God who is infinitely powerful and operates beyond the realm of our experiences. To get to the question you hiding, I'm not a YEC.
"Do you think scientific explanation and consensus on an ancient cosmos and earth are the most likely?"
Given the vast spectrum of what scientists believe, it's impossible to answer this vague question. I think that currently the Big Bang cosmology is the closest to what you allude to, but it's also the most compatible with theism and therefore has led to a number of theoretical alternatives that don't fit with what's currently known (Multiverse, Big Crunch/Bounce).
"Almost definitely correct?"
Again given the spectrum of things being proposed, this vague question can't be answered as asked.
"Or do you think an ancient cosmos (science) is equally as likely as a young earth theory (creationism, at least some flavors of it)?"
In all honestly, given the reality that the science of statistical probability makes it unlikely that we would see the sort of purely naturalistic, blind, unguided, random evolution in the longest proposed time frame, I find the question to be the kind of pointless diversion engaged in by those who stopped paying attention to this topic 25+ years ago. It seems as if you think that "ancient cosmos (science)" is some easily defined, monolithic, objectively proven, given that must simply be accepted. Is that your opinion?
"Or do you think that YE theory is the most likely?"
I'll say that some version of a young earth created by an infinitely powerful God can't be 100% eliminated without a prior commitment to philosophical and methodological naturalism, which certainly doesn't seem either justifiable or wise in my opinion.
"Since you're bringing up science, these seem to be on topic to me."
1. I'm not bringing up "science" in some vague general sense.
2. I'm quoting an exchange that seems to point out some problems with (at a minimum) science education.
3. I'll simply note the obvious that you have made absolutely zero attempt to even begin to try to answer the questions raised, but have chosen to try to divert attention away from your lack of answers by raising the canard of YEC as a diversion.
4. As with many things, how things "seem" to you makes absolutely no difference to me.
5. Your obsession with "seems" rather than "is" doesn't bode well for your ability to seriously discuss the actual topic being raised in this post.
6. Your repeated attempts to expand the "topic" to suit yourself are becoming tiresome and frustrating.
" For what it's worth, when I read commentary like this, what it SOUNDS like the person is actually saying is, "I don't understand how evolutionary science makes any sense at all... and since I don't understand it, it can't be true/should not be considered as likely..." Not saying that's what you're saying. Just that these sorts of commentaries tend to sound a bit anti-science-y and do so based upon a lack of understanding, not a rebuttal based on data."
Perhaps your commitment to what it "SOUNDS" like based on your preconceptions and biases, is part of the problem here. Perhaps you didn't notice that the author of the piece quoted is ASKING QUESTIONS to try to get specific answers. He's literally asking, "What is the scientific answer to these questions?", and not getting anything but regression.
Are you of the opinion that "evolution" is not complex, or that it is simple?
Are you disputing the fact that (given the blind, unguided, naturalistic, parameters imposed by many in the scientific community) that a complex system would take longer to evolve than a less complex system?
Are you suggesting that there is some intermediate method of mammalian reproduction while the sexual reproductive systems developed at different speeds?
Are you suggesting that a blind, unguided, process spread over thousands of years and over the entire planet is going to produce the reproductive system that we see in mammals? A reproductive system that requires the simultaneous evolution of two distinct yet complimentary parts to function?
Do you deny the notion of irreducible complexity?
What cosmology are you advocating as the most likely means for the beginning of the cosmos as we know them?
Can you provide a simple explanation of the statistical probability of the creation of a functional protein or DNA sequence in the most generous possible estimate of the time period projected for the age of the cosmos?
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/exploring-the-universe-is-there-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227123-000-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-fine-tuned/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
https://www.nature.com/articles/302505a0
https://www.nature.com/articles/469294a
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10655
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
https://www.firstthings.com/404
FYI the actual linked post, which contains the entirety of what I excerpted, also has some links to some more recent treatments of this discussion.
That's the problem when you base your arguments on the notion that the positions you are arguing against have remained static for 25+ years and that you learned enough in the past to speak with authority in the 21st century.
1. If you will look at my words you will see that I have not suggested that the science has remained static 25 plus years.
2. Can I answer questions about the science of eyes? No. I am not a scientist. I am not an evolutionary scientist. And I cannot answer the questions In your little story. But I've seen that evolutionary scientists can and have answered the questions.
3. Do I think that evolutionary scientists have a better handle on the science than theologians and philosophers? Yes.
1. You’ve been quite adamant about the fact that you haven’t read anything from any conservatives on any topic for at least 25 years, were you lying about that, or is this the exception?
2. Really, then by all means, show me specifically where those questions have been specifically answered. Unlike you, I’ve studied this a fair amount and I have yet to see these sorts of answers you claim exists.
3. Absolutely none of the links I posted were from theologians or philosophers, but I guess you presuming so is par for the course. Please define “evolutionary scientists”, you seem to think that they have their own special category.
As your other comment was simply another version of the one I posted, with excuses for not answering the questions asked, I’m not going to publish it. Maybe you forgot that you’d commented and commented twice or something.
https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226
Dan blindly referenced "evolution scientists" earlier, so let's look at what the most influential "evolution scientist" had to say about evolution.
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
"DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
"Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution."
"It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch."
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
I guess we've got an "evolution scientist" who doesn't buy your hunches about morality either.
" The messages that DNA molecules contain are all but eternal when seen against the time scale of individual lifetimes. The lifetimes of DNA messages (give or take a few mutations) are measured in units ranging from millions of years to hundreds of millions of years; or, in other words, ranging from 10,000 individual lifetimes to a trillion individual lifetimes. Each individual organism should be seen as a temporary vehicle, in which DNA messages spend a tiny fraction of their geological lifetimes."
1. If this true, then the only thing of value in any organism is passing on the DNA message, isn't it?
2. If #1 is true, then there is no basis for morality. Especially a "golden rule" based morality?
3. If DNA is about carrying "messages", and if messages carry information, then where did the information come from?
4. How does information capable of being passed on come into being without some intelligent cause?
"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. ... This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living."
Note the inherent contradiction in denying the notion of purpose, but then bestowing that same purpose that was denied onto DNA.
"Once an opsin (or the predecessor of the opsins) covalently bonded with retinal, PERHAPS in a cell with a cilium or two, the slow crawl to an eye began. Instead of studding the cellular membrane with bacteriorhodopsin as MIGHT be seen in Halobacterium solarium, these compounds came together in an eyespot, and evolution co-opted the molecule for sight instead of using it as a proton pump.
Multiple light-sensing cells in an eyespot in a multicellular animal, such as a leech could recognize only light or dark. Perhaps after 35 000 generations, an organism discovered that developing a concave cup instead of a spot produced a more successful and competitive organ for sight."
PERHAPS they MIGHT be correct, they certainly aren't presenting any actual data that is testable, repeatable, or falsifiable, are they?
"As Nilsson and Pelger12 SUGGESTED, from an eyespot to an eyecup to a fully formed camera-style eye COULD take as few as 364 000 generations, and the production of such an eye in PERHAPS as short a period as half a million years."
Again, heavy on speculation and qualifiers, light on testable, repeatable, falsifiable data.
"Of course, there would be more to an eye than just a cup, but that is a key step (Figure 2), and that cup MAY fit the real definition of an ‘eye.’ IF ONE ASSUMES that the eye must provide spatial information to be defined as an eye,.."
" Evolution has selected"
If evolution "has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target", then how does one explain that "Evolution has selected" certain elements and combined them to improve this proto eye?
I could go on, but it seems reasonable that you didn't even read the first section of this link, and didn't notice the equivocations, the qualifications, and the appeals to "evolution of the gaps". Given that It's probably pointless to go any further.
It's clear that you aren't going to answer questions any more readily or with any better answers than we saw in the example in the original post.
So, is evolution the blind, pitiless, goalless, mindless, DNA replicator or is it a sentient force striving to reach known goals?
? As to your questions about evolution and its design? Intent? Evolution has no plan. It's not a sentient being. You know that, right? Evolution just explains how things have evolved. It iss not a moral system and doesn't claim to be. Are you thinking that science needs to have a moral system behind it?
Please read bidet your comment, it’ll be easier for everyone.
The problem appears to be that you're reading the informed opinions of real scientists and are not understanding what they're saying so, instead of investigating more deeply, you find writers (scientists?) who say what you want them to say.
Am I mistaken? Are you not selecting the creationist-friendly reports of people who are only saying what you want to hear? Your author of your cute little story, Al Serrato, does not appear to be a scientist. Who is he? What are his credentials to make you think he's also just not understanding, as opposed to making legitimate points?
Science and the eye...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/422031
https://www.nyas.org/magazines/autumn-2009/how-the-eye-evolved/
Craig...
""As Nilsson and Pelger12 SUGGESTED, from an eyespot to an eyecup to a fully formed camera-style eye COULD take as few as 364 000 generations, and the production of such an eye in PERHAPS as short a period as half a million years."
Craig's response: "Again, heavy on speculation and qualifiers, light on testable, repeatable, falsifiable data."
Um...
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth... And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light... And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky...” God grabbed a rib from Adam and made a woman...
etc.
Heavy on speculation and empty, unsupported declarations, light on testable, repeatable, falsifiable data.
Agreed?
"Am I mistaken?"
Why yes you are. If you'd have bothered with the multitude of references I provided you'd know that I'm citing current scientific thought. Hell, Dawkins stands by his quotes even though they aren't "current". Of course the fact that he's written the "most influential" book on the subject is probably worthless.
"Are you not selecting the creationist-friendly reports of people who are only saying what you want to hear?"
No, you can tell this by looking at the multiple sources I've provided. But I've got to give you credit for persistently trotting out the old "creationist" and "YEC" canards as if there's been no significant advances in critical treatment of Darwinian orthodoxy since the 70's. I guess that's what happens when you stop studying things over 25 years ago because you've seen everything you need to see.
"Your author of your cute little story, Al Serrato, does not appear to be a scientist. Who is he?"
Had you read the account, he's someone who's asking questions. Are you suggesting that "Science" is too big and complicated for a non scientist to ask questions and expect answers? I could be wrong, but I don't recall him ever suggesting any alternate theories or answers, and even if he did, does the fact that he doesn't have scientific credentials that satisfy you disqualify him from proposing alternate explanations?
"What are his credentials to make you think he's also just not understanding, as opposed to making legitimate points?"
What credentials does he need to ask questions?
"Heavy on speculation and empty, unsupported declarations, light on testable, repeatable, falsifiable data. Agreed?"
1. Excellent job of NOT dealing with the problems with the "source" you provided, by diverting things elsewhere?
2. Scripture isn't a science text, and never claims to be.
3. Do you realize that you've just disqualified your source, although I'm sure it was inadvertent.
4. Your inability to answer questions, and your reflexive diversion from dealing with the problems in your authoritative source, would be amusing of it wasn't so pathetic.
He's not simply asking questions. He's snidely and patronizingly asking questions that he pretends to know the answers to and pretends that the answers demonstrate the irrational nature of evolutionary science (irrational to him). THE POINT of his questions is to mock science that he appears to not understand. They are not genuine questions, are they?
Now, IF HE and you would say, "look, I truly don't understand how evolution can explain the eye... could you help explain these areas of concern that I don't understand...?" that would be one thing. He's not doing that, is he?
Hell, the post is called "PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY..." The PRESUMPTION is that there is a problem with evolutionary biology. A more rational and humble starting place would be, "Some questions I have with evolution..." or, even better, "Things I don't understand about evolution."
He didn't go that route. As you can see by Marshal's grade school cheer ("Awesome!"), the point is to put scientists in their place and mock their stupidity.
Are you not aware of that?
Add in to the mix that it's a father (male) who is trying to demonize and mock a FEMALE teacher and this strikes of patriarchal ignorance. Dad-splaining to the little woman "teacher..."
Open your eyes. They evolved for a reason.
Looking further at your cute little patriarchal story from an unknown non-scientist, I see that he cites "Dr" Frank Turek, who is a "doctor" in the sense that he went to a Christian "university" that was begun by Creationists, a university that was "accredited" by a Christian "accreditation" group that "accredits" and verifies that their "accredited" schools are following traditional Christian beliefs. ALL kinds of red flags there.
Oh, and the "Doctor" has no science degrees, just a "christian apologetics" degree.
Oh, and the "doctor" appears to mainly make his little speeches on youtube. No scholarly research from him that I can find. Certainly no research that has had peer review scrutiny from actual scientists.
Red flags sprouting all around should be a warning for anyone citing such "sources." Do you have any actual science behind your lack of understanding or is it limited to, "I don't understand, therefore, I'm going to listen to creationists who say what I want to hear...?"
The only science links you've provided don't appear to be dealing with these "creationist" claims, much less supporting them.
Look, with someone like me, you have an actual ally... someone who believes in a Creator God who started this universe off. But the more you cite such "experts" with no expertise and make groundless attacks masquerading as innocent questions, the more you turn people further and further away from ANY respect for "creationism."
Craig... " Perhaps you didn't notice that the author of the piece quoted is ASKING QUESTIONS to try to get specific answers. He's literally asking, "What is the scientific answer to these questions?", and not getting anything but regression."
Perhaps you didn't notice that this NON-scientist who posted your cute little story IS SETTING IT UP where he is the hero and the silly little woman teacher is the idiot. This does not represent an actual conversation. It's an anti-science attempt to make himself feel like a big man by making up a conversation.
Perhaps your allegiance to an anti-science worldview has blinded you to these things you're not noticing.
Use those eyes you evolved and that brain God gifted you with to actually see and understand.
"He's not simply asking questions. He's snidely and patronizingly asking questions that he pretends to know the answers to and pretends that the answers demonstrate the irrational nature of evolutionary science (irrational to him). THE POINT of his questions is to mock science that he appears to not understand."
That's quite a claim, let's see some proof of the accuracy of your analysis of his internal thought and motives.
"They are not genuine questions, are they?"
This really isn't a question, is it? It's an assumption with no proof, disguised as a question. But as near as I can tell, they are genuine questions.
"The PRESUMPTION is that there is a problem with evolutionary biology."
1. Usually the title or headline is written after the post.
2. The inability to answer those questions, seems to indicate that there is a problem.
3. Hell, even the most hard core devotees of evolution acknowledge that there are problems with evolutionary biology.
4. To anyone who's done any study of the issue in the last 5 years of so, this notion isn't particularly controversial.
"Are you not aware of that?"
Aware of the fact that you've concocted a wholly imaginary back story out of whole cloth, and in doing so managed to completely avoid the fact that the questions were reasonable, and the answers were nonexistent. Now, from someone like you who rarely answers questions, and frequently invents strange, imaginary motivations behind the questions, I can understand why you'd find this normal and rational.
"Add in to the mix that it's a father (male) who is trying to demonize and mock a FEMALE teacher and this strikes of patriarchal ignorance. Dad-splaining to the little woman "teacher..." Open your eyes. They evolved for a reason."
This is quite the flight of fancy, even for your active imagination.
Are you really suggesting that the gender of the participants was in any a motivating factor? If so, then provide proof.
Obviously the notion that a parent would dare question a teacher about anything, instead of simply accepting the truth of what's being taught is distressing to you. No wonder our education system is in such bad shape.
Of course, still no answers to the questions.
Dan,
Asking me to prove things that I've never said is going to be disappointing for you, because I'm not going to prove claims I haven't made just because you make demands.
Dan,
Perhaps you are aware that the title Dr is awarded to all kinds of people. It's even awarded to people who haven't completed their undergraduate, masters, or doctoral course work.
This notion that you can avoid dealing with the data and evidence provided by someone by ridiculing and belittling their academic credentials for failing to come up to your standards, is quite strange. The fact that you think that ad hom attacks are a substitute for actually addressing substance would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the author of the piece quoted is ASKING QUESTIONS to try to get specific answers."
What an obviously insane idea. Asking specific questions to get specific answers, that's absolutely CRAZY. No wonder you don't answer questions, you find the whole notion ludicrous.
FYI, the above is tinged with sarcasm and hyperbole.
FYI, FYI, Asking people questions to find out if they even have an answer to the questions, is still a perfectly valid reason to ask questions.
""What is the scientific answer to these questions?", and not getting anything but regression.""
Which is exactly the point. He's seeking answers and she's regressing back to an "evolution of the gaps" argument. Essentially, "We don't have a cue, but Evolution did it.". Yes, kicking the can further back should never be an acceptable answer, should it?
" Perhaps you didn't notice that this NON-scientist who posted your cute little story IS SETTING IT UP where he is the hero and the silly little woman teacher is the idiot."
Proof of this claim, now!
"This does not represent an actual conversation. It's an anti-science attempt to make himself feel like a big man by making up a conversation."
Proof of this claim, now!
"Perhaps your allegiance to an anti-science worldview has blinded you to these things you're not noticing."
Perhaps your ignorance and blind trust in Science has blinded you to the actual state of the conversation around these issues in recent years. Perhaps your prejudices and biases have blinded you the the reality that every single piece of data you've ignored is from "scientists". Perhaps you're blind allegiance has caused you to ignore the fact that there are a growing number of scientists who are raising these kinds of questions and are as unsatisfied with the lack of answers and infinite regression as this author.
"Use those eyes you evolved and that brain God gifted you with to actually see and understand."
I am, that's why I'm unimpressed with vague probabilities, endless regression, and defaulting to "evolution of the gaps".
If you can't answer the questions, prove your claims, or stop the ad hom attacks, I'll have to stop responding to you. I'll post your comments just to allow your ignorance and hubris to be exposed to sunlight. But, I'm not wasting time with fantasy, ad hom attacks, refusal to answer questions, and claims you can't be bothered to prove.
Give me the one single piece of absolutely unquestioned, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, piece of evidence that you believe definitively proves Evolution to be conclusively True.
Craig... "Give me the one single piece of absolutely unquestioned, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, piece of evidence that you believe definitively proves Evolution to be conclusively True." I haven't made that argument, have I? I suppose you'll be glad to acknowledge that you are unable to give me one single piece of absolutely unquestioned, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, piece of evidence that you believe definitively proves God created the world? And please, explain SPECIFICALLY what you believe. Are you saying that YOU THINK that one day, there were no humans and the next day (Day six??), God created one literal man and one literal woman - Adam and Eve - and from that day on, there were humans? That we didn't evolve from other primates, but Poof! created on Day Six? Are you saying that when God created animals, Poof! God gave them eyes and prior to that, nothing existed with eyes? That eyes are a literal creation directly from God? Again, not mocking you. Just trying to nail down what it is you believe. If you are saying you literally don't know and you just have some guesses, then tell me that.
Excellent job, why not just say that you can't answer, or that you don't know, or something? Why not even make the attempt to answer, instead of obfuscating?
I suspect it's because you can't, you just blindly accept it because "Science" says so.
Wow. Dan's arrogance is on full display here. He assumes all manner of things about the science as well as the motivations of lay people in their asking of obvious questions.
Dan's "faith" is so false and brittle than he can't bring himself to trust that God could actually create everything in the blink of His eye. No. He'd sound too backwards to those he needs to impress with his pretense of sophistication. His worship of science is plain for all to see. Very sad.
And like all lefties, he insists you're anti-science because you question what unproven science suggests, and how such questions shake the foundations of his pretentious sophistication.
I can't say that I took Al Seratto's story as an actual event as described. My thought was that it was an illustration of such conversations that expose the holes in the arrogant science worshiper for whom no questions from a layman are worthy of legitimate response...particularly those who expose those holes. These types of questions are posed all the time and often answered far better by legitimate scientists who do not buy in to that which Dan apparently believes is beyond questioning. THAT is what I found awesome about the story.
And of course Dan demonstrates his assholery by suggesting there is some attack on women because the kid's teacher happens to be a woman. Apparently Dan's afraid of women if he thinks one can't question a woman, especially to expose her limitations. I mean, really...what kind of weak, spineless women inhabit Dan's little world? I never meet such whiney, snowflake-type women. Even the lefty women I know are strong women!
As to Frank Turek, Dan disparages a man of God who is a far better man of God than Dan could ever pretend he is. Dan has no science degree...he is not a "doctor" of anything, but he thinks he can crap on a guy who likely has done considerable study of the subject matter he discusses. Dan reads the headlines.
Excellent job. Why not just say you can't answer, or that you don't know? Why not make an attempt to answer, instead of ignoring it?
I trust experts. That IS a direct answer. It's rational. It makes sense and is easily understood. I'm NOT an expert on evolution, any more than you are. So, rather than attempt to speak authoritatively on topics I'm not an expert in, I defer to experts over my own attempts and certainly over your "expertise," which appears to be your willingness to cite non-scientists as if they had credibility on the topic.
I trust experts... just not white conservative self-proclaimed experts on "God" or "creationism."
If you're a self-proclaimed expert, your source is yourself. I'll take a hard pass on that. ESPECIALLY if you have no expertise in the field you're speaking of.
"I trust experts. That IS a direct answer. It's rational. It makes sense and is easily understood. I'm NOT an expert on evolution, any more than you are. So, rather than attempt to speak authoritatively on topics I'm not an expert in, I defer to experts over my own attempts and certainly over your "expertise," which appears to be your willingness to cite non-scientists as if they had>"
Except you literal didn't give that answer to the "Name one thong...?" question that you were asked. You literally didn't do anything but ask questions.
Of course, this new answer, is simply, literally, nothing. "I trust experts.", not specific experts, no reasons why you trust those specific experts, no nothing but vague nothingness.
Of course you just can't go one comment without lying/misrepresenting what I said.
Look, I understand. You're ignorant regarding the more recent discussions on this topic, and instead of simply admitting ignorance, you try the appeal to authority logical fallacy, avoiding answering questions, condescending tone, with a little bluster thrown in for good measure.
To summarize then, your answer is that there is not one single compelling piece of data that you gain confidence from, but simply the vague premise that you trust the "experts".
Perhaps you missed the fact that I've quoted Richard Dawkins extensively. For your edification, and if your experts exist, they likely had their views shaped by Dawkins. So, please stop with the experts, bullshit, and stop with the "You're not citing scientists" bullshit. the first is a logical fallacy, the second is simply a lie.
" I trust experts... just not white conservative self-proclaimed experts on "God" or "creationism.""
1. How positively racist of you.
2. Please show us this legion of "experts" who aren't white and explain why their skin color makes them worthy of trust?
3. Great, since I haven't offered any experts on "creationism" in this thread. The experts you've ignored are not "creationists".
4. This childlike notion that you can throw out "creationism" as a pejorative, when you're simply clinging to your biases about things that were current back in the 70's is quite ostrich like in it's resistance to exposing oneself to new ideas.
5. Fortunately, there's enough "mainstream" scientific data out there that it's quite possible to point out the flaws in the naturalist/Darwinian worldview.
In your ignorance of the compelling evidence that your "experts" allegedly have that has inspired your unquestioning trust, then how about if you simply explain where the information came from that fills our DNA.
If you're a self-proclaimed expert, your source is yourself. I'll take a hard pass on that. ESPECIALLY if you have no expertise in the field you're speaking of.
" However, I have no reason not to think that these experts (who seem to be fairly universally in agreement on the general theory of evolution) are correct. Why would I?"
Because there is plenty of mainstream "science" that is raising more and more questions about the Evolutionary orthodoxy. But, you'd have to care enough to remedy your ignorance and stop relying on others to do your thinking for you.
" Am I bound to it?"
Given your hostility toward anyone who questions the dogma, I'd suggest that you are bound to it more than you'd admit. The fact that you can't cite one single bit of data that underpins your faith in these experts makes me suspect that your faith is a shallow one based primarily on others.
"No. Can I explain it or say that it is objectively true?"
Clearly you're ignorance indicates that you can't explain it, yet you act as if Evolution was objectively True anyway.
FYI. if you want your questions answered, you'll need to get caught up. I'm done letting you off the hook.
Craig... "Of course, this new answer, is simply, literally, nothing. "I trust experts.", not specific experts, no reasons why you trust those specific experts, no nothing but vague nothingness. "
Of course, it literally isn't "nothing." I trust a consensus of experts. If 9 out of 10 doctors are telling me that smoking can contribute to cancer, I will probably not smoke. I may not be able to state that I can point to objective proof that they're right, but I have no reason not to respect the opinion of experts, especially when we're speaking about a consensus of experts. Especially an overwhelming consensus of expert opinion.
Do you suspect that we DO have reason to be suspicious of such a consensus of expert opinion?
WHY should I be dubious of the consensus of climatologists on climate change?
WHY should I be dubious of the consensus of scientists on evolutionary science?
Dan,
Do you agree that philosophical and methodological naturalism or materialism are the default positions that define all scientific inquiry?
What's interesting is that all you have when you try to name drop is Ken Ham.
You ignore
Michael Behe
Steven Meyer
William Dembski
Alister McGrath
Richard Buggs
Douglas Axe
Guillermo Gonzolez
Richard Sternberg
Now, I could certainly suggest more, but since I've already given you multiple links to look at, it seems pointless to overburden you with more scientists that you'll either ignore or won't read anyway.
I just wanted to point out that if your familiarity with "the other side" only goes as deep as Ken Ham, than you are clearly behind the times.
sigh.
Behe: "ome of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"[51] and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.[52] Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."
"Many of Behe's critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-page decision, citing Behe's testimony extensively as the basis for his findings:
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[55]
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
etc.
From wikipedia
Steven Meyer (an historian, not a scientist)...
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular"
~From Wiki
" Of course, it literally isn't "nothing." I trust a consensus of experts. If 9 out of 10 doctors are telling me that smoking can contribute to cancer, I will probably not smoke."
Are 9 out of 10 cosmologists telling you that the Big Bang is the best possible explanation for the beginning of the cosmos?
"I may not be able to state that I can point to objective proof that they're right, but I have no reason not to respect the opinion of experts, especially when we're speaking about a consensus of experts."
Except, I didn't ask you to "point to objective proof that they're right", I asked you to point to the one, single, most convincing piece of evidence that convinces you that everything else is True. That's a completely different question, and one that apparently causes you significant trepidation. If it didn't, that I suspect you'd have answered by now. Was it Haekels Embryos? The sooty moths in England, Darwin's finch beaks? Piltdown man? Perhaps it's all the convincing explanations for the Cambrian Explosion? I don't know, you tell me? Although I think I know why you are so reluctant to be pinned down.
"Especially an overwhelming consensus of expert opinion"
I honestly don't think you have any idea how little of an overwhelming consensus around Evolution there really is. Given that everything I've offered so far is "mainstream science". Of course, this is just another example of you falling back on the "appeal to numbers" fallacy, combined with the "appeal to experts" fallacy.
"Do you suspect that we DO have reason to be suspicious of such a consensus of expert opinion?"
When I start with the fact that most scientists today start from a prior commitment to philosophical and/or methodological naturalism/materialism, then include or exclude evidence or lines of inquiry based on preconceived commitments, I can't help but be suspicious.
"WHY should I be dubious of the consensus of climatologists on climate change? WHY should I be dubious of the consensus of scientists on evolutionary science?"
Would be be suspicious of any consensus if there wasn't actual conclusive evidence to justify that consensus? Would you be suspicious of any endeavor that excluded potential evidence simply because of a commitment to a philosophical position?
Two comments where you've simply copy/pasted some negative third party criticism without actually engaging with what either of them actually has said, or done. That's some excellent, if lazy, scholarship.
This absurd notion that you can gain an accurate perspective on anyone by copy/pasting the first negative thing you find on a Google search is pretty disappointing for someone who claims to be so addicted to data.
It's especially interesting in that your early excuse for being unable to answer one simple direct question was that you simply didn't understand what was being discussed. Now, miraculously, you suddenly understand enough to conclude that the people you are predisposed to disagree with are wrong about the nuts and bolts of the mechanisms of Evolution.
But you and your ignorance keep hanging out in the shallow end of the kiddie pool.
Craig... "I honestly don't think you have any idea how little of an overwhelming consensus around Evolution there really is. Given that everything I've offered so far is "mainstream science"."
By all means, educate me. How many biologists or scientists DISAGREE with the notion of evolution?
Again, from Wiki...
"Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents."
Or, from Pew...
"Scientists overwhelmingly agree (98%) that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/
Has wiki/Pew made a mistake? Could be. Show me the data.
I posted the information about Behe because it was especially relevant and typical of what I've heard and read over the years. Much like Trump's nonsense about "winning the election" and "election fraud..." when it came right down to it, the people making the false claims had to admit that it was clearly a sham, something no reasonable people would think is factual.
Behe's admissions - when confronted by serious challenges by adults who know - show this same surrender.
"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"
and...
"Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
That is, IF you accept a bunch of preconceived ideas held by religious conservatives and don't stress a need for proof... THEN maybe my case can be made... but not if I have to, you know, prove it scientifically.
Or, as the judge in that case said,
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
It is a religious, NOT a scientific proposition.
Do you have anything to dispute that conclusion? From peer-reviewed scientists?
Of course you're right a geophysicist and college professor isn't a real scientist.
Once again, you've simply copy pasted what a third party has said about Behe.
Either way, my point remains that if Ken Ham is all you have, then you really haven't done any research.
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
Are you really offering an unnamed judge from a trial that occurred quite some time ago as a "scientific expert"?
"Do you have anything to dispute that conclusion? From peer-reviewed scientists?"
I'll make you a deal. If you pick one or two of the articles I linked to that are based on peer reviewed scientists, and deal with those, I'll consider doing a deep dive into the current state of ID. Most of what I've seen in the past few years is focused on the inability of "mainstream science" to provide evidence of their own claims.
FYI, do you understand the premise behind ID and the very limited hypothesis it set out to demonstrate? If co, please elaborate.
I'd argue that any belief system that relies on faith could be classified as a religion, wouldn't you?
"Show me the data."
You can't provide me with one single thing that has inspired your unquestioning devotion to something that you admittedly don;t understand, yet you expect me to prove a negative.
When you cite the wiki number of 97%, can you be precise regarding how they define "evolution"?
How about this, why don't you show me the physical data (read fossil record) that shows the gradual direct transition from one species to another.
This notion that you continue to ignore question after question, yet demand answers and proof when you provide neither is quite mystifying. This notion that your demands must be met, while my requests go ignored, seems the height of hubris.
Especially me specific requests that you prove your specific claims.
Pathetic, but I guess it's just easier to mine negative quotes about people for ad hom attacks, rather than defend your claims.
Dan,
I'll point out one additional problem you have in this conversation. The very premise of the conversation quoted in the post was to make the point that the dogma of evolution reaches a point where it becomes irreducible. That point could be in several places.
1. It could be, as the author points out, the improbability of the male and female reproductive systems developing independently and simultaneously, without an adequate explanation as to how mammals (partly defined by sexual reproduction) reproduced before the current arrangement evolved.
2. It could be the introduction of information to the mix. As we know, our DNA contains vast amounts of information that is organized in multiple precise ways to accomplish various things. It seems reasonable to ask how information evolved from a mindless, purposeless, random process. Or it seems reasonable to ask how information/language came from nothing.
3. It could be the beginning of the cosmos. How did matter come from nothing? How did our universe, solar system, and planet end up so perfectly tuned for carbon based life?
Obviously there are other questions, but those suffice. How does Evolution explain those things? Or what purely materialistic/naturalistic mechanism does?
It's interesting that you quote someone criticizing Behe for his prior commitment to Christianity, yet don't seem to have a problem with those who have a prior commitment to a materialist/naturalist position. Just one more double standard, I guess.
Again with the "peer review" (PR) ploy. Lack of PR fails to persuade when reminded of the flaws of that argument. They don't publish, so far as I'm aware, of how many papers, studies, what have you, were submitted for review yet were never chosen for review. Of all which is submitted for review by a given scientific journal, it is a wholly subjective decision as to what gets reviewed. In other words, there could be tons of legit, compelling and persuasive research that never sees the light if day via the incredibly politicized peer review process. But lefties continue to give peer review weight it truly doesn't have, if it ever did at all. In still other words, lack of peer review has no bearing on the quality or validity of any research. As such, acknowledging lack of review is not in the least an admission or indictment one way or another with regard to research that conflicts with any widely accepted scientific theory or notion.
You're right about one thing: Those ARE questions, for sure.
Craig... " It could be, as the author points out, the improbability of the male and female reproductive systems developing independently and simultaneously..."
So, you and this guy - neither of which are scientists or experts in evolutionary biology - find this confusing and unlikely... and therefore, we should say, "Hey, these two non-experts are right! It DOESN'T seem likely! Those 97% of scientists who affirm evolution must be wrong!
Same for your other "it could be's..." From here, it sounds like you and this guy are saying, "I don't understand... therefore scientists must be wrong when they practically universally affirm evolution."
I don't find that to be rational.
Craig... "You can't provide me with one single thing that has inspired your unquestioning devotion to something that you admittedly don;t understand, yet you expect me to prove a negative."
97% of experts all agreeing on a topic is not unquestioning loyalty. It's reason. That is, if there is an area where I'm not an expert and not able to be an expert - heart surgery, lung cancer, evolution, etc - AND if 97% of experts say, "Well, here's the likely answer..." I'm going to believe those experts over some guy who tells a biased cute illustration to mock a female scientist and science in general and make him feel better about himself.
Because that is rational.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "that you quote someone criticizing Behe for his prior commitment to Christianity, yet don't seem..."
Of course, that is yet another stupidly false claim. I HAVE A PRIOR COMMITMENT TO CHRISTIANITY, goofball! I don't have a problem with a commitment to Christianity.
Do you recognize your stupidly false claim for the false witness that it is?
No, I don't have a problem with a commitment to Christianity. I have a problem with using one's religion to attack and demonize something they don't understand and try to pretend to build a case based on data... but it's actually based on their own presumptions.
Your arms are too short to box with God, boys. Stop making agreeing with your religious beliefs a litmus test for what your science MUST say.
Always begin with reality and work outwards. If you're making a fake reality to match your Christianity, you're worshiping your own ideas, not Christianity.
Understand your error? Ready to repent?
Regarding "historian, not a scientist" Stephen C. Meyer:
https://stephencmeyer.org/about/
Regarding Dan's link to Pew, the article does not provide a link to the claim Dan highlights in his comment. While that's curious in and of itself, it demonstrates what I believe to be quite true: Dan does not read the links he provides as evidence, instead simply getting a tingle upon reading the headline and believes he can convince anyone he's done his work by pretending his offering is truly "hard data" to support his positions. I know he doesn't read our links, but he should know by now that we read his and as such are wise to his crap.
Another interesting tidbit regarding his link, especially considering his description of Meyer as "not a scientist" (not true, BTW), is the fact the expertise of the dude who wrote the Pew article, David Masci, is in Religion and public life. Thus, based on Dan's standards, the Pew link is worthless crap. In any case, since the link does not provide the means to check the claim, Dan has not proven jack about it.
Regarding Behe, Dan thinks the Dover trial is the final word on the subject, and thinks a Wiki article tells the whole tale. It does not. Unfortunately, I'm not up for a deep dive in that particular case, but it's easy enough to find responses to it that demonstrate flaws in both the manner in which Behe was questioned in the trial, as well as the in the conclusion of the judge.
While Dan likes to think scientific consensus for evolution or in opposition to ID as a science is overwhelming, two things must be kept in mind:
1. The number of those who agree on a theory doesn't make the theory the best explanation for whatever issue is on the table. 100% agreement could mean 100% of those who agree are 100% wrong. Every scientific discovery necessarily contradicts or refutes established belief...consensus, as it were. Worse, God-deniers like Dan routinely conflate "theory" with fact.
2. Darwinian evolution is opposed by many scientists, many of whom began their careers as proponents.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
"So, you and this guy - neither of which are scientists or experts in evolutionary biology - find this confusing and unlikely... and therefore, we should say, "Hey, these two non-experts are right! It DOESN'T seem likely!"
No, this is a fabricated, fictional, inaccurate "paraphrase" of what's happened. We are literally asking reasonable questions (him to a science teacher who is presumably not ignorant on the topic), and me to you (who is ignorant on the topic). In neither case are definitive answers forthcoming. It seems reasonable to point out the fact when this all encompassing theory can't answer reasonable questions. Of course it doesn't seem likely that two reproductive systems that REQUIRE that both systems work in a specific way and perform specific tasks, would not serve their purpose if they developed at different paces or in different locations. Because it's so unlikely (as it's unlikely that mammals could sexually reproduce absent two completely functioning and complimentary reproductive systems, it seems reasonable to ask how mammals are here in 2021.
"Those 97% of scientists who affirm evolution must be wrong! Same for your other "it could be's..." From here, it sounds like you and this guy are saying, "I don't understand... therefore scientists must be wrong when they practically universally affirm evolution." I don't find that to be rational."
Since no one actually said that or anything like that, I'll simply note that it's bullshit, made up, crap, and move on. I'll point out that just because "97%" affirm something called Evolution, doesn't mean that the specific questions being asked aren't valid, it's also idiotic to assume that a cosmologist (for example) has anything to contribute the a specific question of evolutionary biology. Which disqualifies some % of your "97%" from any authoritative contribution.
I don't really care what you find rational, as I don't believe that you are the arbiter of what is objectively rational. It's just your narcissism coming out.
"97% of experts all agreeing on a topic is not unquestioning loyalty. It's reason. That is, if there is an area where I'm not an expert and not able to be an expert - heart surgery, lung cancer, evolution, etc - AND if 97% of experts say, "Well, here's the likely answer..." I'm going to believe those experts"
1. Yes it's an answer.
2. Yes it's a reason.
3. It's also a "appeal to numbers/authority" fallacy.
4. It's not based on any actual "DATA".
5. It's based on your faith that these "97%" of scientists actually have enough "DATA" to back up their claims.
"I'm going to believe those experts over some guy who tells a biased cute illustration to mock a female scientist and science in general and make him feel better about himself. Because that is rational. Do you disagree?"
1. You have faith in and believe whoever you want.
2. I personally don't find it rational to make shit up about people's motives and to engage in ad hom attacks on them.
3. I guess the fact that the person was a teacher, not a scientist, means that accuracy isn't a high priority with you.
4. I guess the fact that there was no mockery indicates the same disregard for accuracy.
5. Again, I find your attempts to be the arbiter of what's objectively rational to be troubling displays of narcissism.
6. Yes, because I usually disagree with inaccurate, made up bullshit.
Art,
Your comments on the state of peer review are well made. I think that the simple fact that there are a multitude of instances where people have submitted research to be peer reviewed when they've (intentionally or through incompetence) been completely full of crap, yet they get published. I addressed this some tome ago and remember providing all sorts of data to show that the peer review process is not what it once was (if ever) and that it is regularly affected by outside agendas, and other problems.
Let's not forget how many science textbooks knowingly published falsified (hoaxes) "proof" of evolution. If Evolution is so well attested, why would they need lies to support it for decades?
Art,
I pointed out Dan's error regarding Meyer. He also elevated the teacher in my original post to "scientist". The notion that a person with a science background, education, and experience somehow loses credibility because the change careers to study the history of science, is simply a childish version of an ad hom attack. Dan rarely goes after the actual research, product, or data of those he disagrees with, he simply engages in personal denigration as if it's a substitute.
Based on what I've read from scientists who've renounced their faith in Evolution, most of them have dons so because of the lack of hard data, and the inability to answer an increasingly large number of questions.
For years we heard about the "God of the gaps" theory, as a way to dismiss any counter to Evolutionary dogma, yet now we are increasingly seeing "Evolution of the gaps" proposed as a legitimate "answer" to various questions.
God- all powerful, all knowing, creator, loving, personal, etc.
Evolution- blind, pitiless, indifferent, unguided, unfocused, uncaring, etc.
Which one of those seems more likely to provide meaningful answers?
Craig... "Based on what I've read from scientists who've renounced their faith in Evolution, most of them have dons so because of the lack of hard data"
Here's a quick and reasonable question...
How many of those who have renounced their understanding of evolution are also conservative christians? Or flipping it around... how many people who are not conservative christians and who are scientist have renounced an understanding of evolution.?
If there is 97% of scientists who affirm evolution that leaves about 3%. Of that 3%, are they all conservative christians? Or most of them? If you have practically the entire to scientist who affirm evolution in the tiny percentage who don't affirm evolution are all conservative christians, what does that tell you?
Reasonable questions.
'Here's a quick and reasonable question... How many of those who have renounced their understanding of evolution are also conservative christians?"
Here's a quick and reasonable thought, how about you answer more than one question already asked before adding more questions for others?
As far as the specific answer, I don't know for sure and I haven't kept a list for reference. Given your lack of reciprocity, I'm not inclined to invest a lot of time in researching. With that said, I have some clarifying questions.
1. If they moved away from faith in Evolution because of the "DATA" or lack thereof, who cares what their religious views are? Why does it matter? Are you the only Christian who's capable of evaluating "DATA" and reaching an reasonable conclusion?
2. I can think of at least one high profile English scientist who started out as an atheist and ended up as a Christian as a result of his studies around these topics. His name escapes me, but I'll try to find it.
3. Given the fact that Evolution "Makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest.", Why would Christians place so much faith in a worldview that is antithetical to Christianity?
4. Did I already say, who cares?
Now, if you have some "DATA" that shows that "conservative christians" are brainwashing "scientists" to give up Evolution, let's see it.
How many of the "97%" of scientists are atheists?
"Or flipping it around... how many people who are not conservative christians and who are scientist have renounced an understanding of evolution.?"
Because asking the same idiotic question once in a comment just isn't sufficient, it's absolutely necessary to go full bore asshole and ask it twice.
See the answers/clarifying questions above.
" If there is 97% of scientists who affirm evolution that leaves about 3%. Of that 3%, are they all conservative christians? Or most of them? If you have practically the entire to scientist who affirm evolution in the tiny percentage who don't affirm evolution are all conservative christians, what does that tell you? Reasonable questions."
Just like the article Dan linked to about development of the eye, the above comment is defined by one word. "If" It's literally supposition, piled on supposition, piled on supposition, in a bizarrely childish attempt to try to prove a point without actually providing any "DATA" or peer reviewed studies or anything. Just If, If, If, If.....
Art provided a link, maybe you could do some of your own research.
Are you suggesting that scientists who are "conservative christians" (compared to you that probably mean Francis Crick would be considered a "conservative christian") are inappropriately influenced by their worldview, but scientists who are militant atheists are unaffected by their worldview?
Art,
Here's what I'm noticing. The strategy outlined in the post, that of asking questions that build upon each other in order to understand the limits of someones beliefs, is proving to be an excellent one. Just read this thread. Instead of the teacher's reductionist response of “Evolution occurred gradually, over time, as the predecessors to humans slowly began to change.”, Dan's reductionstic response is "If 97% of scientists believe it, then it's good enough for me." (a paraphrase, leavened with a bit of sarcasm)
As I was contemplating whether or not to do Dan's research for him, I realized something. If I do go and find out what he claims he wants to know, it's likely that he'll ignore it as he's done in the past. But, if he doesn't ignore the results, it's likely that he'll begin to pass judgement on them based on second and third hand sources from biased sources. Which explains why I'm not going to waste much time doing Dan's fool's errand.
The case of Guenter Bechy is an interesting one. As a Roman Catholic, I'm not sure he fit's the stereotype of the "conservative christian", yet he's had quite the target painted on his back. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that anyone who's had multiple species named after him, might have at least a modicum of credibility as a scientist. But I could be wrong.
That's it. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole doing research that Dan, in all his intellectual glory should be able to do. If he deigns to sully himself, I'm quite sure that he will portray any one he finds in the most unflattering light possible.
To answer your question, as I tend to do in spite of you not answering mind,...
"If they moved away from faith in Evolution because of the "DATA" or lack thereof, who cares what their religious views are? Why does it matter?"
It matters because it potentially speaks to motivation. Let's use round numbers explain.
Say there are 1000 scientists. Say they all affirm evolution. 1000 out of 1000 experts affirm a theory, given the data they know. That's pretty amazing.
Now, say that out of the 1000 scientists, 3% disagree. 30 scientist of the 1000 do not believe that the data supports evolution. Still, 970 do affirm evolution. That's still pretty compelling.
Now out of the 30 who disagree with the vast majority, we find out that 25 of those are religious conservatives whose doctrine would be shaken by the notion of evolution.
That is, they truly believe the God created the world and humans to one degree or another intact and complete... Adam and Eve. They affirm this belief because of what The Bible says. Like your expert, Behe, when it came right down to it he had to admit that there was no data to compel the belief. You have to start with a belief in The Bible and that, sort of literal.
That's an incredible minority of scientists that don't affirm evolution. And, out of that tiny minority, some large percentage are religious conservatives whose faith dictates creation not evolution.
See, it matters because it further reduces The number of scientists opposed to evolution. Father, if almost the entire D of the tiny month nortey of opposition to evolution comes from a group with a predisposition to be opposed to evolution, even if they claim it's for reasons of data, it makes their Case less compelling. If they can't provide the data and/or it can't withstand peer review and even after providing what they claim is data, well, suffice to say, motivation matters. Prior commitment to disagreeing for religious reasons matter.
Of course.
Let's flip it around. 1000 scientist. 300 christians. 300 Jewish. 200 Muslim. 100 atheists. And, 100 were overt racists.
Out of that group of scientists, 970 affirmed that there was no superior race, that humanity was all the same basically. You had 30, however, who swore the data showed that black people were part of an inferior race.
Now, when you look at the data from this survey, you see that pretty much everyone from all groups was United... except for 30. And of the 30, 25 of them were the ones who were committed racists.
Now they swore they were looking at the data... BUT, given that nearly everyone else was in agreement, given that even a majority of the racists weren't disagreeing, and Given that pretty much dealing group the disagreed or those with a prior commitment to racism, what would you conclude? Do you think it matters What their prior commitments and beliefs were?
Of course it matters. Do you disagree?
"To answer your question, as I tend to do in spite of you not answering mind,... "
Why yes, you did answer one question I asked, I guess in your mind that one answer represents for all the other lonely, unanswered questions. The very notion that you have the hubris to type this flat out lie is just astonishing. The fact that you either believe this pile of shit, or think that I'm to stupid to read what you write is simply pathetic.
" It matters because it potentially speaks to motivation."
Really? that's quite an assumption, any proof of anyone who actually ignored the "DATA"? Of course, this is just one more big full of crap hypothetical, so who the hell cares? WooHoo! Dan can cobble together a hypothetical that he thinks actually proves his point, impressive!!!
I read the rest of his hypothetical, I'll post it (like I do pretty much everything he spews), but I can summarize it as follows.
"If this, and If that,and If the other thing and If, and If, and If, then I'm 100% objectively right. (It's a paraphrase, sprinkled with sarcasm, not a quote. Don't wad your panties.
" Prior commitment to disagreeing for religious reasons matter. Of course."
But prior commitments to other worldviews don't matter, is that what you're saying?
I'm sure that all of the founders of modern science will be shocked to hear that their faith renders them incapable of doing science things.
Let's not forget, Evolution was literally intended to destroy the Christian worldview. But, no there's no disqualifying bias in that worldview is there.
But still no answers to questions.
The research the Dan should do...
You are making an extraordinary claim, it appears. That 97% of the scientist in the world are mistaken about a fundamental scientific conclusion.
Is that correct?
Further, we see from your sources that the primary objections appear to be coming from christians with a prior commitment to opposition to evolution, Or part of groups that are opposed to evolution.
Further, we can find no non christians who looked at the claims of intelligent designFurther, we can find no non-christians who looked at the claims of intelligent design/ Creationism and said, you know what? The right. And giving up revolution.
Given the near universal agreement among experts, given that the opposition appears to come primarily from conservative christians, and given how tiny a minority that opposition is, and given that The majority of their peers do not even view intelligent design as a scientific theory since there's no data to support it... Given ALL that, your view is the outlier. If you want to make the case, you can. If you don't, than the majority of us will just continue to agree with the majority of experts. Will laugh you off as not credible.
That's on you. But you can bet we're not going to do your research for you.
I've already acknowledged that Dan is second to none when it comes to crafting hypotheticals that (he believes) inescapably lead to his preferred conclusion. I'll further stipulate that these hyppotheticals are usually so stilted an unrealistic that they are almost comical in their attempt to force the reader to the preordained conclusion. It's almost like Dan is trying to prove a point by using hypotheticals that are hopelessly slanted in the preordained direction as to be of little probitive value. It's almost like Dan's prior commitment to an agenda drives him to slant every hypothetical to reach a preordained conclusion.
I'll approve more of this idiotic hypotheticals, but I'm not going to dignify them with a response.
FROM THE I'VE ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS FILE, SOME OF THE UNANSWERED ONES. FYI, CLAIMING IGNORANCE AND IGNORING QUESTIONS IS NOT ANSWERING THEM.
Are you of the opinion that "evolution" is not complex, or that it is simple?
Are you disputing the fact that (given the blind, unguided, naturalistic, parameters imposed by many in the scientific community) that a complex system would take longer to evolve than a less complex system?
Are you suggesting that there is some intermediate method of mammalian reproduction while the sexual reproductive systems developed at different speeds?
Are you suggesting that a blind, unguided, process spread over thousands of years and over the entire planet is going to produce the reproductive system that we see in mammals? A reproductive system that requires the simultaneous evolution of two distinct yet complimentary parts to function?
Do you deny the notion of irreducible complexity?
What cosmology are you advocating as the most likely means for the beginning of the cosmos as we know them?
Can you provide a simple explanation of the statistical probability of the creation of a functional protein or DNA sequence in the most generous possible estimate of the time period projected for the age of the cosmos?
1. If this true, then the only thing of value in any organism is passing on the DNA message, isn't it?
2. If #1 is true, then there is no basis for morality. Especially a "golden rule" based morality?
3. If DNA is about carrying "messages", and if messages carry information, then where did the information come from?
4. How does information capable of being passed on come into being without some intelligent cause?
PERHAPS they MIGHT be correct, they certainly aren't presenting any actual data that is testable, repeatable, or falsifiable, are they?
If evolution "has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target", then how does one explain that "Evolution has selected" certain elements and combined them to improve this proto eye?
In the link Dan provided that was supposed to be conclusive proof of something, we find this claim by the authors.
"Evolution has selected"
Let's remember this is part of what Dan has offered as proof of Evolution. Yet Dan himself says this.
"Evolution has no plan. It's not a sentient being."
This raises maybe one of the more critical questions in this thread....
Which one of those two is right? Can something that's not a sentient being, with no plan actually select something? Doesn't selection imply that there is a desired outcome?
Maybe I gave this mess short shrift because it's a little incoherent with random punctuation and such.
"As to your questions about evolution and its design? Intent?"
Yes I did ask questions about this. Primarily to try to understand why those committed to evolution keep using language that suggests exactly design or intent. If Evolution is NOT those things why use language that suggests that it is? Much like you use the term "creation" to describe the world, yet does Evolution really create?
"Evolution has no plan. It's not a sentient being. You know that, right?"
I know that what people say about it, perhaps you just missed the multiple quotes I posted saying exactly this, and decided if I was aware of something I'd commented on extensively.
'
"Evolution just explains how things have evolved."
This is interesting, isn't there some rule about not using a word to define a word? Which brings us back to the questions in the post and the questions I've been asking. the ones you haven't answered.
"It iss not a moral system and doesn't claim to be."
1. Some of it's more vocal adherents might disagree with this statement.
2. Yet so many behaviors that are described as evolutionarily beneficial, or natural, or as positive things are things that your "moral hunch" would consider immoral. Are you suggesting that amorality is an appropriate life choice?
"Are you thinking that science needs to have a moral system behind it?"
Well who wouldn't prefer things to be in accord with morality? But one wonders how one might ground any rational moral system from an atheistic, mindless, remorseful, purposeless, survival of the fittest, red in tooth and claw, worldview?
Short answer, science without a moral system behind it seem to lead to a dystopian, nihilistic future that doesn't sound appealing at all. Hell, it's not unrealistic to argue that Darwin 'scientific" views themselves laid the intellectual framework for many of the horrors of the 20th century. The eugenics movement for one, and Hitler took a lot of his racial views from Darwin as well.
In any case, I'm trying to understand how a system based in atheist, pitiless, random chance, purposelessness, directionlessness, survival of the fittest, etc, would lead to a system of morality that runs counter those things.
Oh, I know the answer. Morality just evolved, like magic.
How would you describe something that is purposeless, undirected, non sentient, lacking in a plan, randomly spewing out something that is the opposite of those things, plus with information and communication, other than magic?
I didn't find all the questions you didn't answer, you're welcome.
Craig...
Are you of the opinion that "evolution" is not complex, or that it is simple?
Are you disputing the fact that (given the blind, unguided, naturalistic, parameters imposed by many in the scientific community) that a complex system would take longer to evolve than a less complex system?
Are you suggesting that there is some intermediate method of mammalian reproduction while the sexual reproductive systems developed at different speeds?
Are you suggesting that a blind, unguided, process spread over thousands of years and over the entire planet is going to produce the reproductive system that we see in mammals? A reproductive system that requires the simultaneous evolution of two distinct yet complimentary parts to function?
Do you deny the notion of irreducible complexity?
What cosmology are you advocating as the most likely means for the beginning of the cosmos as we know them?
Can you provide a simple explanation of the statistical probability of the creation of a functional protein or DNA sequence in the most generous possible estimate of the time period projected for the age of the cosmos?
1. If this true, then the only thing of value in any organism is passing on the DNA message, isn't it?
2. If #1 is true, then there is no basis for morality. Especially a "golden rule" based morality?
3. If DNA is about carrying "messages", and if messages carry information, then where did the information come from?
4. How does information capable of being passed on come into being without some intelligent cause?
PERHAPS they MIGHT be correct, they certainly aren't presenting any actual data that is testable, repeatable, or falsifiable, are they?"
etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
These questions HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. DO you understand that? I've ANSWERED these questions. The answer is, was, has been and remains: I DO NOT KNOW. I'm NOT A SCIENTIST. I'm NOT AN EXPERT ON Evolution.
Thus, I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
Do you?
Now, that was several answers to many questions.
Your turn.
97% of scientists believe evolution is the correct theory to explain our biological history. Some 3% of scientists DO NOT agree. SOME percentage of that 3% have a prior commitment to a religious view that makes them inclined not to agree with the vast majority (maybe closer to 99%, if you take out those with a prior commitment to a non-scientific conclusion.)
1. Given that, and given that I'm not a scientist or an evolutionary expert, ON WHAT BASIS would I accept your vague hunch that evolution is probably wrong?
Do you regularly reject the opinion of a majority of experts? If so, maybe that's part of the problem.
2. Also, do you know of ANY non-Christian scientist who peer-reviewed the case for ID (which I believe is what you're advocating - which does not appear to be data-driven, but probability-driven) - and said, "You know, I think they're right, I now disagree with evolution..."? Is there even ONE such non-Christian scientist?
According to the first "authority" on your list...
" Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity."
3. No peer-reviewed articles for ID? Well then, it's not really a scientific theory, is it? (hint: Scientific theories should be able to stand up to peer review. If the theory can't be find support outside of a tiny minority of experts, it's not to be trusted.)
How about answering a question for a question? I've answered many of yours. Your turn. Answer these three.
Oh, also, it would help with your credibility if you'd admit you misspoke when you suggested I didn't answer those questions. Clearly I did. Anyone can see that I did. Just admit your mistake, man. Be adult. Humble thyself.
"Evolution has selected"
Let's remember this is part of what Dan has offered as proof of Evolution. Yet Dan himself says this.
Good Lord, have mercy. Maybe the problem is that you're just not as rational or intelligent as I think. You don't REALLY THINK that when a scientist says "evolution has selected," that they are suggesting that "evolution" is a sentient being, making deliberate selections as a matter of choice?
Come on, you're not this obtuse. TELL ME, you know that this is a euphemism, not an indication that the author intended to suggest that Evolution was Sentient?
If you're truly this obtuse/unable to understand words, then I need to back up and apologize. I assume some basic level of understanding words. If you lack that, I'm sorry for being so rough on you, Craig. Good luck in life, my man. Take care of yourself, okay?
Last one, little Craigie... "CLAIMING IGNORANCE AND IGNORING QUESTIONS IS NOT ANSWERING THEM."
I'm not claiming ignorance. I'm literally NOT a scientist and I literally can't answer complex questions about evolution. It's not my sphere of knowledge. That's just a fact.
Thus, pointing out THAT FACT and saying, "Thus, I'm not able to answer that question," IS answering them.
Lookit: I'm NOT a mechanic. If you ask me (demanded of me!), "Dan, the birchwhistle joint on the carbeuretor block has a crack in it, running from the top to nearly the bottom. Can that birchwhistle joint be repaired by darno-glue and what tool would you use to apply it?" My answer to THAT question is "I'm not a mechanic and I can't answer that question.
And that is literally a direct, clear and understandable answer to the question, factually correct and objectively true.
Do you understand?
Craig... "science without a moral system behind it seem to lead to a dystopian, nihilistic future that doesn't sound appealing at all. Hell, it's not unrealistic to argue that Darwin 'scientific" views themselves laid the intellectual framework for many of the horrors of the 20th century. The eugenics movement for one, and Hitler took a lot of his racial views from Darwin as well."
You misunderstand. Again.
I'm NOT arguing in favor of science divorced from morality. I'm saying SCIENCE ITSELF is neither moral nor immoral. It's a pattern of "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." But science, itself, is not a moral (or immoral) system. It's a process TO WHICH humans should apply moral grounding, to be sure.
As to your concern about Darwin's racism and moral concerns... I'm curious: Do you have the same concern for Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Calvin and other ancient Christian "role models..." such as they are? Shall we reject Edwards' and Whitefield's sermons because they were slave owners/supporters? Calvin's theories because he was a heretic killer (or at least endorsed it)?
Your concern for old scientists and their moral failings would be more credible if so. If not, then it seems like just another chance to USE racism as a tool to attack your political and philosophical opponents, rather than actually be concerned about racism. That, itself, is just another tool of the racists, you know?
If morality "evolved" from animals becoming human and then dictating morality, then morality isn't a constant, fixed condition which we discover. It is truly subjective and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any behavior. It's all just a matter of public polling.
I thought these links would be relevant:
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm
https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
https://aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
In light of these, I wonder about that 97% figure.
Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.
Dan: "It's not my sphere of knowledge."
In Dictionary v. Dan, I guess the dictionary wins again. I guess that who "false witness" canard is once again proven false.
"Do you understand?"
Yes, I understand that you not having knowledge about a topic that you clearly are strongly committed to is the dictionary definition of ignorance. The fact that you don't care enough to do DATA" out there that you are unaware of and you'd rather hide behind your "appeals to numbers/authority" fallacies than risk finding something that goes against your prior commitments.
FYI, they teach evolution to children but your hide behind the "I'm not a scientist" bullshit, you're not a lot of topics but that doesn't stop you from expounding on them.
"You are making an extraordinary claim, it appears. That 97% of the scientist in the world are mistaken about a fundamental scientific conclusion. Is that correct?"
No! It is most emphatically not correct. It is literally a false claim that you have made up out of whole cloth. It could be considered a lie. No!
" Further, we see from your sources that the primary objections appear to be coming from christians with a prior commitment to opposition to evolution, Or part of groups that are opposed to evolution."
Also completely false.
1. I offered multiple links early in this thread that demonstrate what mainstream scientists are publishing that demonstrates the massive holes in the Evolutionary/Naturalist narrative.
2. The only reason I even mentioned and specific names of people who are sympathetic to or identify as Christian (including Collins who's definitely NOT conservative) was to point out that Ken Ham is not the only person in the field. I've not offered anything from any of those people (no matter how well credentialed and published they are) in this thread.
" Further, we can find no non christians who looked at the claims of intelligent designFurther, we can find no non-christians who looked at the claims of intelligent design/ Creationism and said, you know what?"
No, what? So what? I'm sure your five minute Google search was exhaustive.
"Given the near universal agreement among experts, given that the opposition appears to come primarily from conservative christians, and given how tiny a minority that opposition is, and given that The majority of their peers do not even view intelligent design as a scientific theory since there's no data to support it... Given ALL that, your view is the outlier. If you want to make the case, you can."
Again, why would I make a case that you have concocted in your own mind? I've not offered any of those things in those thread, you've just invented this for some unknown reason.
YOU demanded that I provide you with information, I declined to provide information that you can find as easily as I can. The rest is just you throwing up bullshit to obscure the fact that you're ignorant, and won't answer questions.
If you don't, than the majority of us will just continue to agree with the majority of experts. Will laugh you off as not credible. That's on you. But you can bet we're not going to do your research for you.
"I'm saying SCIENCE ITSELF is neither moral nor immoral. It's a pattern of "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Great, that's great, you're "saying something", whoo hoo.
Please point me to the repeatable experiments that demonstrate how protein strings evolved from random chemicals?
Please point me to one instance where there is a continuous/unbroken chain of fossil evidence that conclusively demonstrate one species evolving onto another species?
Please point me to one instance that's been observed (since Darwin first proposed his theory) of one species evolving into another?
Please show me one one instance where random mutations have been observed making positive changes to the species, and where those changes persisted through multiple generations?
"Do you have the same concern for Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Calvin and other ancient Christian "role models..." such as they are? Shall we reject Edwards' and Whitefield's sermons because they were slave owners/supporters? Calvin's theories because he was a heretic killer (or at least endorsed it)?"
1. No, like all of us who are fallen sinful humans those people were not perfect, never claimed to be, and should be evaluated accordingly. God uses imperfect people to achieve His ends to His glory.
2. That's like saying we should ignore every bit of scripture because it was written down by the exact same sorts of fallen sinful humans. Let's ignore Paul, Peter, David, Abraham, Rahab, Solomon, and all the rest.
3. According to your definition "science is a pattern of "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.", are you suggesting that Darwin's work wasn't regarded as science?
" Your concern for old scientists and their moral failings would be more credible if so. If not, then it seems like just another chance to USE racism as a tool to attack your political and philosophical opponents, rather than actually be concerned about racism. That, itself, is just another tool of the racists, you know?"
I know that this habit of you simply making shit up to tar people as "racist" and "sexist" is getting old and tiresome. The fact that you continue to bitch about "false witness" (even when it's demonstrated not to be), while you engage in the very thing you complain about isn't helpful, Christlike, or embracing grace.
"You don't REALLY THINK that when a scientist says "evolution has selected," that they are suggesting that "evolution" is a sentient being, making deliberate selections as a matter of choice?"
1. Yes, when a scientist (who presumably is trained to precisely use language) says "selected", I have no reason to suspect that they mean something else entirely.
2. Selected; carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
3. Selected: (in terms of evolution) determine whether (a characteristic or organism) will survive.
4. Determine: cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.
5. Please show me where, in any of those definition, "selected" means "happened by random chance"?
6. If they meant something other than selected as it's commonly used, why not use a more precise word? Are there no more precise terms available?
Look back to the Dawkins quotes I provided, his quotes are full of language that suggests this sort of thing, while he simultaneously denies it.
"Come on, you're not this obtuse. TELL ME, you know that this is a euphemism, not an indication that the author intended to suggest that Evolution was Sentient?"
How in the world could you possibly "know" for certain what the authors intended? Where you there with them, did you ask them? Why would they use an imprecise, vague term to describe a very specific action in a "scientific" journal? Do scientists frequently use "euphemisms" in scientific articles?
FYI, this was just one example of many where they used words that suggested guided, design, intent, or similar.
So, when folks refer to "Natural Selection" are they using the term selection to mean "a random, purposeless, remorseful, amoral, violent, process" that is the opposite of selection as it's usually used?
Or are they simply claiming that since (a priori philosophical presumption) we evolved, and since (also a priori philosophical presumption), then every then every random variation that survived must therefore be considered beneficial?
"Take care of yourself, okay?"
Oh, I do do love this particular dismount. It's a way to try to make a bunch of fact claims without proving them, then to simply assert that anyone who doesn't agree with these unproven fact claims isn't worth your time. It's a variation of the high dudgeon or faux outrage dismount, where multiple comments set up some straw man to generate the faux outrage, then there's the final "I'm done" comment. Followed by multiple other comments, or by a post at Dan's blog where he simply sets up the same straw men he's been called on here. At that point, (protected by his mighty delete button) he's free to control the dialogue at will.
" These questions HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. DO you understand that?"
No they and multiple others have not been answered. Providing excuses for why you can't answer them, or why you're too lazy to find the answers, isn't answering them.
"I've ANSWERED these questions. The answer is, was, has been and remains: I DO NOT KNOW. I'm NOT A SCIENTIST. I'm NOT AN EXPERT ON Evolution. Thus, I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. Do you?"
1. I'll point out the obvious, that the second statement contradicts the first. "I've answers those questions." is contradicted by "I do not know the answers to those questions."
Oh my goodness, this is pure comedy gold.
" Now, that was several answers to many questions."
No, it's an excuse for not answering some of the questions you've been asked. Do you understand that you asserting something, EVEN IN ALL CAPS, doesn't magically make it true?
"Your turn."
We're not even close to any sort of balance when it comes to answers, but I admire the hubris necessary to try this.
"97% of scientists believe evolution is the correct theory to explain our biological history."
You keep making this claim as if an appeal to numbers/authority isn't a fallacy. Given that you're engaging on two logical fallacies, why should I take you and any questions derived from this claim seriously.
"Some 3% of scientists DO NOT agree. SOME percentage of that 3% have a prior commitment to a religious view that makes them inclined not to agree with the vast majority"
This is quite the claim, where is the "DATA" to support this claim? In the absence of "DATA" why should I take it seriously? Are you suggesting that a prior commitment to a worldview automatically disqualifies one from accurately analyzing and interpreting things? Or is Christianity the only disqualifying factor? Are you suggesting that Collins work on DNA and the human genome is invalid because of his 'prior commitment to Christianity"?
"(maybe closer to 99%, if you take out those with a prior commitment to a non-scientific conclusion.)"
Again, please prove this by showing some "DATA" that even remotely supports this.
"1. Given that, and given that I'm not a scientist or an evolutionary expert, ON WHAT BASIS would I accept your vague hunch that evolution is probably wrong?"
A. The fact that you announce that something is a "given" doesn't mean that it is actually a "given". Please see above, and provide what's been asked.
B. I'm not asking you to accept my "vague hunch", I've never asked you to accept my "vague hunch".
C. I did provide multiple mainstream scientific sources that demonstrate significant problems with the Evolutionary/Naturalist?Materialist worldview. Perhaps you should start with those and go from there.
D. What I (and the author of the post) HAVE done is ask specific questions about things that I've not seen answered, or that I have seen answered poorly.
E. What I haven't done is asked you to "accept" anything.
F. Your words could be characterized as false, but I'll stick with ignorant.
"Do you regularly reject the opinion of a majority of experts?"
A. No, but I also rarely simply accept things based on appeals to numbers/authority.
B. What I have done is I've looked at this from "both" sides and I've found many things that are explained by "Evolution of the gaps", or that have simply been proven wrong both theoretically and experimentally. (See the links I posted earlier)
C. What I've found is that I personally find the lack of evidence, the decades of lies, the questions left unanswered, and the use of Evolution to bolster evil as problematic.
D. One thing I've found is the tendency of people to say that the believe in "micro evolution", while that belief is construed by others to indicate support for "macro Evolution". Any tome anyone feels the need to engage in this sort of slight of hand, I get suspicious?
E. I still haven't asked you to "accept" anything, do you understand this reality?
F. I find the explicit connection of Evolution and atheism troubling.
"If so, maybe that's part of the problem."
Well, since I've pointed out that you are wrong then perhaps there is not problem. Or at least not one that you haven't invented out of this air. Or perhaps there is a problem that you aren't ready to confront yet? (The increasing numbers of Evolutionary claims proven false)
"2. Also, do you know of ANY non-Christian scientist who peer-reviewed the case for ID (which I believe is what you're advocating - which does not appear to be data-driven, but probability-driven) - and said, "You know, I think they're right, I now disagree with evolution..."? Is there even ONE such non-Christian scientist? According to the first "authority" on your list... "
I'm not sure what you are asking. I do know that I have not once in this thread advocated or even mentioned ID except tangentially in response to one of your false claims. I do know that two of the cornerstones pf ID: Statistics and the ability to identify design are regularly used and trusted in numerous endeavors. Are your suggesting that those two disciplines only fail when applied to Evolution? If so, please explain why?
Would you please stop misrepresenting the scientists on my "list" and why I provided them. Obviously a quick glance at their credentials would seem to suggest that they aren't bumpkins who just fell off the turnip truck. Of course, your quickness to point out that you aren't a scientist, and that you don't know anything about the topic, calls into question your ability to pass judgement on those who are and do. Is it possible that your preconceptions have caused you to judge harshly without having actually researched their actual work?
"Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity.""
When did this happen, and what's changed since then? You do realize that "science" isn't static, and that it's possible that ID has led to other disciplines? Are you one of those people who thinks that ID is a) repackaged "creationism", and b) explicitly Christian?
"3. No peer-reviewed articles for ID? Well then, it's not really a scientific theory, is it?"
You've taken one out of context quote from the 90's (I think), and spun that into quite the fantasy world. I guess you'd have to look at what the originators of ID claimed it to be. I wouldn't speak for them, and I'd have to go back and take a look at what they claimed. I can do that, as can you, but I don't have time now.
"(hint: Scientific theories should be able to stand up to peer review."
Hint, there were scientific theories (and really good ones) before "peer review". Actually, if I remember right, scientific theories have to stand up to the scientific method. Empirical testing, falsification, and repeatability. How have experiments to recreate the beginnings of "life" or proteins fared against those criteria?
"If the theory can't be find support outside of a tiny minority of experts, it's not to be trusted.)"
That's quite a claim. I was unaware that things like right/wrong, truth/falsehood. etc were determined by vote. thanks for the news. FYI, the Copernican Heliocentric Theory wasn't accepted by the majority of his "peers". At least not until the evidence forced them to change their minds.
FYI, have you looked at all the instances in intentionally fake research that have made it through the "peer review" process and been published and how much of it is really stupid? Isn't it possible that the "peer review" process is tainted by the same sorts of preformed convictions about various worldviews?
"How about answering a question for a question?"
1. As soon as you catch up, I'll consider it.
2. The last time you proposed this, you "answered" one question and asked multiple questions.
3. As soon as you catch up, I'll consider it.
"I've answered many of yours."
No you haven't. You've simply responded to them by saying that you're ignorant and unqualified, those aren't answers, those are excuses. I've answered virtually all of yours, some multiple times, and some that were incoherent, stupid, or rhetorical. If I've missed a couple, it's not for lack of effort, it's because all your bullshit runs together and it's sometimes hard to catch something buried in bullshit.
Just yesterday, I went back and answered some questions I'd missed.
"Your turn. Answer these three. Oh, also, it would help with your credibility if you'd admit you misspoke when you suggested I didn't answer those questions. Clearly I did. Anyone can see that I did. Just admit your mistake, man. Be adult. Humble thyself."
What 3? Or did you mean the ones I've already given multiple answers/responses to or asked questions that will help me answer them better. All done. You've got a lot of catching up to do.
I rarely admit mistakes I haven't made, I try to be humble at all times, and I can clearly see that you've got lots of unanswered questions to go. Hell I just posted a comment with a bunch, and that only covered about a third of the thread.
Why should I do what you won't?
I should probably ask you to start with the questions unanswered in the original post, but I won't. You've got plenty from the comments.
Art,
The problem I see with Dan's "97% of scientists" claim is that he hasn't provided any link to it, merely quoted Wikipedia (interesting that he wants science to be "peer reviewed", but cites Wikipedia as if it isn't just a bunch of random people who can change the entries at will.
The Pew piece, doesn't define exactly what it means by "scientists" (is a meteorologist really qualified to speak authoritatively on cosmology of Evolutionary biology?), or precisely define "Evolution".
It uses the term "Humans have evolved over time", and that appears to be what is being agreed with. The term is so vague and broad as to be of little value, and it doesn't address things like origins, habitability, or other topics.
Once again, Dan's big sources over promise and under deliver.
I suspect that unlinked Wiki article as the same problems with defining terms etc.
" Further, we can find no non christians who looked at the claims of intelligent designFurther, we can find no non-christians who looked at the claims of intelligent design/ Creationism and said, you know what?"
This is supposed to be a compelling statement? When you have non-Christians believing science proves there is no God, I would find it hard to believe any of them actually make any serious effort to investigate all that is legitimately compiled under headings such as "Creationism" or "ID". They're the "experts" with the preconceived notions against anything hinting at a Supreme Being or Intelligent Designer.
And of course, as Craig rightly suggests, five minutes on Google doesn't equate to a serious search.
While I haven't really addressed ID in this thread, since It's not really the issue, I will note this.
In many cases "scientific advancement" comes when one theory or hypothesis is suggested, tested and found wanting. In the case of ID, it's entirely possible that as ID was debated, and subjected to criticism, that some of the principles were discarded, while others were refined. While this is speculation on my part, it seems reasonable to consider what's transpired in the larger debate since ID was first proposed and where that has led.
It's also interesting that seeming many scientific advancements were born out of a prior commitment to some worldview. It's certainly hard to ignore the role that devout Christians played in the development of what we'd consider modern science. The notion that ones worldview automatically disqualifies them from looking at evidence and following it to it's logical conclusion flies in the face of so much we take for granted. Journalism, jury trials, our justice system in general, as well as science, all require that we be willing to set aside or modify our worldview if the evidence (or in the case of criminal law, ones role in the system) dictate. The notion that Christians are incapable, or suspect because of their worldview is quite bizarre.
I think that Dan thinks that insinuating that he and his crack research team have done an exhaustive search is intended to be conclusive, not compelling. I think that he believes that since they can't find something, that i doesn't exist.
I've been arguing in multiple ways that everyone has a worldview that they are pre committed to and it's absurd to single out Christianity for extra scrutiny.
What's interesting is that there is plenty of evidence that people's desire to go against current morality, to disprove or find an alternative to God, we simply choose to ignore that sort of pre commitment as if it has no effect.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/charles-darwin-confessions/
It seems safe to say that Darwin had an agenda of providing a complete worldview intended to supplant Christianity, and Huxley and his other disciples jumped on that bus gladly.
It's an example of placing different standards on Christians, than on non Christians.
The 6 facts in the Pew piece.
1. 81% of people in the US believed that humans have evolved over time.
a. They combine two groups to get that 81% when the differences between those groups are significant. 33% who believe as Dan appears to, vehemently deny the very notion of God or anything else in guiding Evolution. The very notion of God guided Evolution is anathema to these folks. The reality is that 33% of those surveyed believe in Evolution, 48% believe in an oxymoron, and 18% don't believe either.
b. There's no real definition of what "change over time" means. Obviously, anyone who doesn't accept that humans of 2021 are significantly different from those of 400 years ago, is simply foolish. But how much of that is advances in nutrition, medicine, and public health as opposed to Evolution?
2. Shockingly this survey finds that atheists have a much higher rate of belief in Evolution than those of various faith groups. I guess it'd be wrong to draw the same conclusions about atheists and their inability to set aside their pre commitments as many assume about Christians.
3. This one (the one Dan hangs his hat on is a bit misleading). It says that 98% of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, believe.... Which isn't quite the same as 98% of all scientists. Strangely enough that AAAS is an advocacy group, which doesn't list it's number of members on it's website, so far as I could see. Perhaps a group with an agenda, with an unknown number of members isn't quite as unbiased as Dan would like us to think it is.
4 Is about court decisions regarding teaching of "Creationism" or ID. As we all know court decisions get overturned, are influenced by numerous factors and the potential biases of the lawyers, judges, and jurors. While courts decide law, they don;t decide Truth. While this is true, it's certainly not a scientific rebuttal or disproving of anything.
5. Most Americans see science and religion in conflict. Part of this is the intent by those committed to Evolution/Naturalism/Materialism to actively put forth a worldview that eliminates the need or place for God. In essence it's like Science is engaged in a "hostile takeover" by promoting what some call Scientism. The notion that Science forms the basis for an entire worldview.
This also ignores those who divide things into the sphere of the natural and supernatural and relegate religion to the supernatural. The attempt to remove the Creator God from His creation and to relegate Him to a role where He has no power or influence is a fairly well documented process, the first I saw of this was from Schaeffer in the 70's. His predictions have been borne out pretty accurately.
Interestingly those who laid the groundwork for modern science would be surprised at this arbitrary division as many were devout Christians whose faith informed and drove their scientific endeavors.
6. (I'm paraphrasing) In those cultures that aren't as advanced and scientifically literate as those of white European heritage, there is a much higher belief in religion, superstition, and all sorts of nonsense. Yes, it's a paraphrase, yes it's sarcastic, yes, it's cynical, but it fits in well with the Eurocentric disdain we frequently see from modern leftists for those who are in societies who are less advanced than ours. Obianuju Ekeocha details this in her recent book Target Africa.
In other words, I think it's safe to say that the Pew piece, while it might be accurately reporting the results of the surveys, isn't particularly balanced in it's reporting of the stats, and is based on a study that acknowledges that it's results are affected by how the questions were asked.
In summary, not the slam dunk that Dan thinks it is.
Sigh.
Last attempt:
What is the theory that explains the world to which you ascribe and which you think makes most sense?
Do you have any peer-reviewed and widely accepted scientific consensus around it?
Are you an expert in cosmology?
If not, on what basis would I find your hunches more compelling than the vast majority of scientists?
Simple, reasonable questions. You are the one that I BELIEVE is advocating for outlier non-mainstream and possibly non-scientific notions about cosmology. If so, the onus is on you to make a case for it, if you want to promote it.
Until you do so, I will rely upon the consensus opinion. And I do THAT not because the majority of experts might be wrong. I do so because I have no reason to listen to Behe and others you mention.
"Sigh. Last attempt:"
Last attempt at demanding that I answer more questions while you continue to ignore mine? Or is it really the first attempt at your bullshit one for one (non) offer. If it's the latter, then no thanks, I want no part of your rule changing, goal post shifting, steaming load of excrement.
"What is the theory that explains the world to which you ascribe and which you think makes most sense? Do you have any peer-reviewed and widely accepted scientific consensus around it?"
I'm done answering your questions until you answer mine. however, before I can answer this, I'll have to ask for proof that "peer reviewed" is the standard by which Truth is determined.
"Are you an expert in cosmology?"
I'll answer this because it's easy and the answer points out your willful blindness, and ignorance. The answer is no, but the cosmologists I linked to earlier are.
"If not, on what basis would I find your hunches more compelling than the vast majority of scientists?"
Again, because you must either be blind, memory impaired, obtuse, or illiterate. I haven't asked you to trust me about ANYTHNG, are you so mired in your fantasy world that you can't see this painfully obvious Truth? I've cited scientists, you've ignored them in favor of this fantasy world you've constructed.
"Simple, reasonable questions. You are the one that I BELIEVE is advocating for outlier non-mainstream and possibly non-scientific notions about cosmology."
Actually, like virtually everything else you've attributed to me, this is also 100% false. But, please tell me specifically what "outlier non mainstream non scientific theory" I have specifically advocated for? If you can't be specific, why should I take you seriously in your ignorance?
"If so, the onus is on you to make a case for it, if you want to promote it."
What is this mystery theory you've fantasized that I'm promoting, maybe if you'd share this secret of your fantasy life with everyone instead of vague, cryptic, made up bullshit, I could help you. But as long as this mystery is locked in your demented skull, I can't tell you about something I've never even mentioned.
"Until you do so, I will rely upon the consensus opinion. And I do THAT not because the majority of experts might be wrong. I do so because I have no reason to listen to Behe and others you mention."
Look, if you want to base your hunches on logical fallacies, who am I to stop you. Given your ignorance, lies, alack of answers to questions, and divorce from reality, I'm not sure I care that much about what fantasies you believe.
Look, I gave you more answers than your lack of answers deserves, but if you can't do what you demand of others, then stop demanding.
Art,
This approach of asking questions that they can't answer works better than I thought it would. I'll have to try it one someone who isn't ignorant on the topic and just follows along with the majority of members of an biased advocacy group.
Dan's links rarely are, because I'm convinced he never really vets them, but instead posts them because the headline suggests agreement with him. It's amazing how many of his links I've read over the years provide more support for my position than his, just based on either the flaws in the link or in the argument he thinks the links supports.
I have no doubt that there's been Christians who entered science to learn about God's creation, found what they thought suggests there's no God, and then rejected it to become someone who does indeed seek to force science to say what it needs science to say. But to pretend that's only something done by Christians and not atheists or naturalists or whomever is simply nonsensical. Yet Dan responds as if the science he worships is worthy of that worship because of the purity of intention in the scientists before whom he bends the knee.
Craig... " I haven't asked you to trust me about ANYTHNG, are you so mired in your fantasy world that you can't see this painfully obvious Truth? I've cited scientists, you've ignored them in favor of this fantasy world you've constructed."
I don't need to trust you about anything? Okay, then since the vast majority of experts disagree with your hunches and because from everything I've seen, your "experts" come from a basis that's more religiousy than science-based, I'm opting to NOT trust you and thus, given that I don't trust you and that you appear to be offering irrational sources, I'll pass on thinking you know what you're talking about and that your sources are reliable.
"I've cited scientists..."
You appear to have cited scientists way outside the norms of science and who appear committed to a prior belief in religious doctrine over science and since I have no reason to trust you about anything, I'll pass on spending time reading much from them.
You've given me NO reason to think I should. Understand?
Craig, re: Your stupidly inept/mistaken claims that appealing to a consensus of authorities is a logical fallacy...
You're mistaken. The appeal to authority fallacy is speaking to saying, for instance, "My doctor told me it's okay to smoke, so I can smoke..."
It's speaking to an appeal to A singular or isolated authority. It's not the same as recognizing that consensus expert opinion is a weighty opinion, especially when it's a vast majority, especially when the tiny minority is not really appealing to science, but religious arguments masked in science.
You're just mistaken. But you're welcome (for me correcting your mistake).
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/36228/is-one-commiting-the-argument-from-authority-fallacy-and-or-the-consensus-fal
https://www.quora.com/When-a-scientific-consensus-is-used-in-an-argument-should-it-be-considered-the-fallacy-of-appealing-to-authority-Why-or-why-not
Art,
As you suggest, there have been scientists who claim Christianity, but find science more attractive, yet there are others who find that science points them toward God. It’s almost like some people are irresistibly drawn to God no matter what, and some aren’t.
There are six comments from Dan in moderation right now. At a quick glance, none of them answer questions, and most of them are full of the same “You’re telling lies about me.” crap.
I’m tempted to just post his idiocy without comment, but the idea of letting his falsehoods stand unchallenged is difficult, Especially when they’re so as blatantly stupid as his ignoring multiple links from mainstream science sources and pretending like they don’t exist.
Craig... "At a quick glance, none of them answer questions, and most of them are full of the same “You’re telling lies about me.” crap."
Put another way, Craig is trying to make his case using false and stupidly false claims that he didn't support because he can't support them because they are false.
A man - or a modern conservative movement - who builds a foundation on the shifting sands of stupidly false claims can only expect to be called on it. At that point, they have three options: Admit they were caught making stupidly false claims, apologize and move on from it, being a better person, or double down and ignore that they've been caught in false claims, hoping that their allies either don't care or won't notice.
The third option is not really an option, but IF they could demonstrate their claims were not false, they could actually support the claims. But they can't because they're false and stupidly false. And by stupidly false, I mean those Trumpian-style claims that are so overtly false that everyone can see it except for those who are intentionally blind.
Save yourself. Be the adult. Admit you misspoke, apologize and move on. It's not too late.
Also, as to "none of them answer questions..."
When you REPEATEDLY make the most egregiously, stupidly false claims about those on the other side, those false claims IMMEDIATELY raise questions that must be answered. "Dan supports scientists hating religion? Dan opposes Christians being involved in science?? How can that be??"
And thus, having to endlessly correct your stupidly false claims IS answering questions. It's just that you don't LIKE the answers OR the questions because they point out your false claims and I guess you're just too arrogant to admit you made a mistake.
But the ones who build upon false claims, you can be sure their castle of lies will come tumbling down.
I’m not going to parse these like I usually do, because they’re both just full of the same old crap.
All sorts of claims, accusations, and misrepresentation, with not one actual example.
FYI, I didn’t say what Dan quoted me as saying, which tells me all I need to know about how much Truth and accuracy matter at this point.
Why not just admit that you can’t/won’t answer the questions because your too ignorant on the subject and unwilling to take the time to learn?
Obviously, if Dan is correct about the things you've said, he could produce the comment as well as the date and time of the comment to prove it. He spends so much time whining about "stupidly false claims", addressing the claim directly would be far more beneficial to all concerned.
I would add that it remains curious that Dan would choose to attack those who ask questions such as those highlighted in your post, rather than simply answer the questions or point to where the questions have already been asked and answered.
But let's assume the person asking is truly without the "expert" knowledge Dan assumes is true. This person would be exactly the very people for whom a polite and detailed answer should be provided. You know...a truly inquiring mind. Why attack him with nonsense about patriarchy and radical religious fundamentalism? Religious or not, people have questions about our origins and how things work. The motivations for asking (to prove or disprove God's existence) are irrelevant to how one should respond to those questions.
I don't understand why Dan is so invested in mocking people of faith or in attacking those who don't swallow every bit of the naturalistic explanations for our origins. I get that he doesn't want to be regarded as a backward rube, but a truly sophisticated person, I would think, would simply acknowledge that there's still a huge gap between Scripture and science and how to resolve them. To say one is untrue because the other says something different won't get it done.
I wonder why someone like Dan, or a more honest atheist, fears the possibility that Scripture is absolutely accurate. I don't think too many who put their faith first in Scripture fear the possibility that science is.
Craig... "All sorts of claims, accusations, and misrepresentation, with not one actual example."
Part of the problem is that the answers/comments are getting jumbled around from one post to the other. Another problem is that you aren't posting all my comments. But the reality is that I CITED YOUR words and showed you your literal mistake.
For instance, THIS is the false claim in question, I believe...
CRAIG (citing Dawkins): "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
CRAIG MAKING A FALSE CLAIM: This is the worldview that Dan is so zealously and blindly defending
I pointed out that it's a stupidly false claim to say I'm defending Dawkins' words and anyone can SEE it's stupidly false by the way I NEVER DEFENDED Dawkins' comment.
Now, can you admit the reality that I've NEVER defended Dawkins making these sorts of comments? I never did and it's a stupidly false and slanderous claim to say that I have.
Likewise your other stupidly false claims, like this one...
Craig... ""Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness."
This active hostility to religion is perfectly fine and appropriate to Dan in scientists, but heaven forbid a Christian dares to engage in science."
I HAVE NOT advocated for scientists to be hostile to religion (and indeed, I see no data from Craig suggesting that it's a common belief.
It's a stupidly false claim.
Likewise, OF COURSE I'm not "heaven forbidding that Christians dare to engage in science..." My daughter's a scientist, my father was a scientist, many of my dear friends are scientists! It's a stupidly false claim. YOU HAVE NO DATA TO support that claim because it's stupidly false.
It's just a throw-away lie of the sort that has become way too common amongst Trumpian conservatives. You all are establishing yourselves as utterly corrupt and wholly unconcerned with honesty or human decency. Stop it.
Can you be an adult and admit your false claims?
I find it difficult to fathom that anyone with even half a brain would fail to recognize the scientific chops of a man like Stephen C. Meyer. The following link is from Wintery Knight heralding the coming of Meyer's latest book. I'm particularly interested in pointing out the reviews highlighted, but I would also encourage doubters and mockers to give a listen to the 22 minute interview of Meyer by Michael Medved, and then try to make a case that Meyer is not on top of the issue of origins. The very idea is patently absurd and illustrates the lack of integrity of anyone who takes such a foolish position.
https://winteryknight.com/2021/03/29/last-day-to-pre-order-dr-stephen-c-meyers-new-book-return-of-the-god-hypothesis/
Problems with Meyers' guesses...
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/more-of-stephen-meyers-bad-history-of-science
"Part of the problem is that the answers/comments are getting jumbled around from one post to the other. Another problem is that you aren't posting all my comments."
Unfortunately they are, and I've tried to move stuff back here. Maybe you could help by commenting on the appropriate thread to minimize what I have to to to move things.
I have not posted precisely ONE of your comments. It was literally a carbon copy of part of another comment, and therefore served no purpose. I was quite clear and up front about this and why I did it.
But, by all means provide proof of this claim.
Form someone who has a history of deleting comments frequently, this is quite an amusing claim. If, I chose to treat you as you've treated me, I'd certainly be justified in deleting your comments.
Finally, I think you may be confused. I think that fact that I choose to limit my time here, and as such will often allow comments to sit in moderation until I can parse them and answer all the questions in a way that helps be be efficient with my time, confuses you. I suspect that your hubris and impatience lead you to think that if I don't post your comment immediately, that I don"t post it at all.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
This is the worldview that Dan is so zealously and blindly defending>
"Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness."
This active hostility to religion is perfectly fine and appropriate to Dan in scientists, but heaven forbid a Christian dares to engage in science.
"As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise."
Those scientists who were at the foundation of the scientific enterprise would be shocked to hear this news.
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
Again, this is the worldview Dan so zealously champions, In a world that is "pitiless" and "callously indifferent to suffering", why would anyone worry about harm to others.
Dan may say he loves the Bible and talk about God stuff, but his vociferous defense of a worldview that is actively hostile to what he claims to believe is beyond belief.
"For instance, YOU FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins' quote... "
Actually, no I literally DID NOT claim that. My exact words were...
"This is the worldview that Dan is so zealously and blindly defending."
"Again, this is the worldview Dan so zealously champions,"
I'd say that I expect an apology for this lie, but it would be a waste of time.
" I pointed out that it's a stupidly false claim to say I'm defending Dawkins' words and anyone can SEE it's stupidly false by the way I NEVER DEFENDED Dawkins' comment. Now, can you admit the reality that I've NEVER defended Dawkins making these sorts of comments?"
As I pointed out already. I literally DID NOT say you defended Dawkin's comment. You can see that this is the case because I literally DIN NOT say what you claim I said.
You may correct yourself, and acknowledge your error, or not.
"I HAVE NOT advocated for scientists to be hostile to religion"
Then by all means be as vocal in criticizing these sorts of statements as you are in trying to disqualify those folks you demean for their faith. What you're obscuring here is your attempt to use one worldview as a disqualification, while ignoring the affects of other worldviews that are held.
"and indeed, I see no data from Craig suggesting that it's a common belief."
I see that you didn't really read the PEW piece, it literally says exactly this. In fact it takes a mocking tone when it refers to the majority of the world who's just not quite as evolved on this issue as certain western/European descended societies.
"It's a stupidly false claim."
I'll grant you that because of my use of hyperbole, sarcasm, and the like, (when describing your use of the Christian worldview of certain scientists to suggest that they are unable to objectively assess the actual evidence and therefore can be dismissed regardless of their actual research findings and their credentials) it may seem this way. I sincerely apologize for my confusing use of figurative language.
"Can you be an adult and admit your false claims?"
from someone who unrepentantly makes false claims, this statement is either amusing or pathetic.
This was posted in the wrong place. I post it here in it's entirety without further comment because I believe I've addressed everything worth addressing elsewhere. I will not be posting this in the other thread for purposes of clarity.
Craig... "This active hostility to religion is perfectly fine and appropriate to Dan in scientists, but heaven forbid a Christian dares to engage in science." Stupidly false claim that you can't prove and didn't even TRY to support because it is SO PEDANTICALLY, stupidly false that you can't even begin to because, of course, it's just wrong. Does Dan think that hostility towards religion is appropriate for scientists? Dan doesn't care, but has never said that it's appropriate and doesn't think it is. Dan understands, however, hostility towards anti-science types of conservatives, whether they're religions or not. Does Dan think that "heaven should forbid" Christians engaging in sciece? Now, take your time. Breathe. Read the following words and understand what I'm saying... MY DAUGHTER IS A SCIENTIST. MY FATHER WAS A SCIENTIST. I HAVE GREAT CHRISTIAN FRIENDS WHO ARE SCIENTISTS. OF COURSE, I DON'T THINK CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT ENGAGE IN SCIENCE. IDIOT. Again, do you NEVER think about what you're writing? Does it matter to you how very stupid and false your claims are? Good Lord, have mercy.
"As is true for EACH and EVERY one of your comments above, this is stupidly false. But I'd love to see you try and make your case."
As I've pointed out, the claim underlying this is false. I literally DID NOT say what you claimed I said and I've posted the quotes to prove it elsewhere.
"And please understand, pointing to AN INDIVIDUAL scientist that may be hostile to Christianity in some of their views does not mean that Evolution is "hostile to Christianity" or that evolution even HAS a worldview (which, of course, would be a stupidly false claim)."
1. As I've pointed out Dawkins is literally the most influential proponent of Evolution in the past 30-40 years. He literally wrote the single "most influential" text one the subject (I've posted the exact quote multiple times) since Darwin. It's ludicrous to try to minimize the impact of Dawkins on the subject.
2. The fact that Darwin (who I've also quoted) was explicit that he intended Evolution to supplant Christianity as the dominant worldview is well documented, as well as the words of Huxley. The hostility of the Evolutionary establishment to Christianity is so well documented that I can't imagine anyone even casually versed in the subject being unaware of this fact. As you like to say, it's reality.
Again, one of Dan's comments from the wrong thread in it's entirety.
You'll see, perhaps, the error of your ways if you just look at what you've done. 1. The consensus of expert, informed, educated opinion on the topic of the explanation for life on Earth is that evolution is the best explanation of it. 2. Dan believes in listening to a consensus of expert opinion on matters that requires expert, educated, informed judgment. 3. The vast majority of experts affirm evolution (see 1), therefore, Dan generally excepts that view. 4. SOME INDIVIDUAL scientists who affirm evolution ALSO affirm bad stuff. 5. Craig suggested that because ONE expert affirmed bad stuff, Dan must also affirm bad stuff. 6. Dan never said that he affirms this bad stuff and of course, he doesn't. It's a stupidly, diabolically false claim... an attempt to engage in ad hom attacks by using a strawman argument, two fallacies on Craig's part. 7. Craig either made an objectively stupid error or a diaoblically, stupidly false claim. Does that help? Reason - use it, don't abuse it. If you don't understand how to speak of fallacies, maybe you shouldn't.
1. The consensus of expert, informed, educated opinion on the topic of the explanation for life on Earth is that evolution is the best explanation of it.
Actually, if you look closely, you'll find plenty of people who are claiming it's "the only" possible explanation for life on earth, not merely "the best". I was unaware that "consensus" was how Truth was defined. Yet. as the mainstream scientific articles I posted earlier point out, Evolution is failing to actually provide answers to these questions. What good is a "consensus" if it can't actually provide the answers to specific questions?
"2. Dan believes in listening to a consensus of expert opinion on matters that requires expert, educated, informed judgment."
OK, if you want to put your faith in the "consensus" of fallen, imperfect, agenda driven humans, I wouldn't dream of stopping you. Although, it sometimes appears that you can be selective about your application of this principle. (I will not got into an off topic conversation about specifics of this)
"3. The vast majority of experts affirm evolution (see 1), therefore, Dan generally excepts that view."
Oh, the old repeat the appeal to numbers as if repetition of a logical fallacy makes it True.
"4. SOME INDIVIDUAL scientists who affirm evolution ALSO affirm bad stuff."
You probably meant "The single most influential proponent of Evolution of Darwin, who literally wrote "the most influential book" on the topic.", as well as Charles Darwin. But I fixed it. This is why it's so hard to have this conversation with someone who is so unfamiliar with the details of the topic beyond "97%" of (the scientists in an advocacy group) tell me to believe something and I do. (It's a paraphrase, loaded withe sarcasm, and a touch of hyperbole. Not a quote or a claim)
"5. Craig suggested that because ONE expert affirmed bad stuff, Dan must also affirm bad stuff."
Again the "repetition makes things True" canard.
"6. Dan never said that he affirms this bad stuff and of course, he doesn't."
Craig literally, factually, never said that Dan did. But keep repeating the lie until you really believe it (despite the evidence) and you'll be just like the folks we're talking about.
"It's a stupidly, diabolically false claim... an attempt to engage in ad hom attacks by using a strawman argument, two fallacies on Craig's part."
This is the third of fourth time this has been repeated, I'm not going to deal with it again.
"7. Craig either made an objectively stupid error or a diaoblically, stupidly false claim."
This makes 4-5 times, I've dealt with it multiple times, it's still not True.
"Does that help?"
No. repeating lies and bullshit doesn't help. It's actually the opposite of helpful.
"Reason - use it, don't abuse it. If you don't understand how to speak of fallacies, maybe you shouldn't."
OK.
I guess that whole "one scientist says bad things" doesn't taint the whole bunch is selectively applied.
FYI, I've never offered ANYTHING by Meyers to make any scientific points in this thread. I merely offered him as one of several to make the (limited) point that if your knowledge of the topic only went as deep as Ken Ham, that you were not fully informed.
This is one more comment from the wrong thread, that I am posting in it's entirety. As it's simply a repetition of things I've already dealt with in detail, and I've (as far as I can tell) answered all the "questions", I'm just posting this for information and will not parse it as is my usual practice.
Craig... "This is the worldview that Dan is so zealously and blindly defending..." EXCEPT, of course, that I have never said or suggested ANYTHING LIKE THAT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF EVERY WORD I'VE EVER WRITTEN. It is a lie, a stupid lie and a damned lie. You can't support such a stupidly, inanely false claim because it is overtly false. Can you admit that I've never said a single thing ever to suggest such a stupid diabolical lie? Or are you going to stand by your stupidly false claims? Be an adult. Be rational. Admit you made a mistake and be done with it. Boys, your souls are in trouble, your minds are troubled and you're heading for a world of trouble... People recognize such insidious and dangerous false claims for what they are and you Trump-style "conservatives" (and make no mistakes - these sort of hellacious lies are PRECISELY in the style of Trump - stupid and empty of reality or decency) are just going to damn yourselves to marginalization and your own little hells of desperation.
"I don't need to trust you about anything?"
Then why have you repeatedly said that I've asked you to "trust me"? I have NEVER asked you to trust me, yet you've asked the question multiple times. I'm still not asking you to trust me. I am suggesting that you might want to explore the evidence and reconsider your faith in the "experts". But I certainly don't want you to trust me. But this is quite the good job of what might be the "motte and bailey" fallacy. I'm impressed that you've added new fallacies to your repertoire.
"Okay, then since the vast majority of experts disagree with your hunches and because from everything I've seen, your "experts" come from a basis that's more religiousy than science-based,"
As I've pointed out this statement is patently false, and the fact the you keep making it despite my multiple corrections indicates that you simply have no regard for the Truth.
"I'm opting to NOT trust you and thus, given that I don't trust you and that you appear to be offering irrational sources, I'll pass on thinking you know what you're talking about and that your sources are reliable."
Again, although it's sometimes hard to pin down, this has the appearance of the "motte and bailey" fallacy.
"I've cited scientists..." You appear to have cited scientists way outside the norms of science and who appear committed to a prior belief in religious doctrine over science and since I have no reason to trust you about anything, I'll pass on spending time reading much from them."
Again, this is twice in this comment that you've told this lie. What's interesting is the fact that you are adamant that you don't actually care about the academic credentials or the work product of the scientists that I listed (I didn't cite them or their work because you are very predictable in allowing your biases to dismiss people without even bothering to look at their qualifications or work). Of course, this gives you cover to simply IGNORE the mainstream scientific citations I did give you and to lie about the fact that I offered them and about their provenance. Keep repeating the lie until you convince yourself it's true. It's also easier to keep me focused on rebutting your lies and bullshit that to answer questions and prove your own claims.
But hey, at least I've actually quoted specific influential proponents of Evolution to bolster my points, you've done nothing but repeat your 97% mantra as if it's what you represent it to be.
"You've given me NO reason to think I should. Understand?'
I've never asked you to trust me, nor even attempted to give you reasons to trust me on this, the fact that you think that I have just solidifies my decision not to trust you.
Another comment posted in the wrong thread, posted here in it's entirety. This was actually the first comment I parsed when I started wading through the repetitious bullshit over an hour ago. After an extended amount of time parsing, responding, and answering, the comment was lost. I'm going to post it un parsed for now and see if there's anything I haven't already addressed before I dig in again.
Craig, I'll answer this question, but THEN are you going to answer mine? Will you admit your stupidly false claims? We'll see. Craig... "I’m sorry are you suggesting that you’re not championing the Naturalist/Materialist/Evolutionary worldview?" Am I "championing evolution..."? No. Am I affirming the reality that evolution is affirmed by the vast majority of experts? YES. IS that the reality? YES. Do I have any reason to doubt the expert consensus? No. Does CRAIG have any reason to doubt the expert consensus? It appears he thinks so, but he hasn't established that he does or that he has reasonable cause to, if he does. Do you understand the difference? Materialism is a different matter, more complex and I believe with more variations in what it means, so you'd have to ask something more specific. Naturalism, I'm inclined to say No, I don't affirm that. With the caveat that perhaps we have no way of objectively proving spiritual matters. Do you disagree? Now, having dealt with that, answering your question as directly as possible, do you recognize that just because some evolution advocates also advocate other philosophies/ideas, that does not mean I affirm those other philosophies/ideas? For instance, YOU FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins' quote... "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." But not all evolution advocates would agree that there is no evil, no good, but this is not required thought when it comes to evolution. Correct? Now, they may say that we have no way of objectively proving what specifically is evil or good or any "intent" by "the universe..." and this is factually correct. (As you always regularly demonstrate by your remaining silent on the question when it has been raised.) But why WOULD they insist that the can objectively prove what they (and you) can't prove? Now, we'll see if you'll answer the questions put to you, raised by your own words and false claims about me.
Art,
It is strange to think that if there really are definitive answers to the questions asked in the original post as well as those I've asked, that the response isn't to simply point to the answers. Wouldn't it be both easier and more convincing to simply answer (or point to the answer of) the questions? Wouldn't it seem like they'd be trumpeting the answers publicly, instead of hiding behind "Evolution did it" or "consensus". Hell, those answers do the opposite of instill confidence.
Again, I agree that the best option regardless of perceived motivation is to answer the questions.
Imagine the chagrin and embarrassment of the misogynistic, sexist male interlocutor when this woman (as Dan calls her, a "scientist"), simply provides clear direct answers to his questions. What a moment of triumph for both women and science. To be able to vanquish this pesky, sexist, parent, by providing him with straight answers, what a radical idea.
Or, let's say that she doesn't have answers readily available, but knows that the answers are there. Why wouldn't she simply say, "Those are good questions, but they aren't something we cover regularly in my class. Would you be able to schedule a private conference for next week and allow me to find those answers for you?". Then they meet, she has the answers, and he's embarrassed to be intellectually bested by a woman.
Aren't those scenarios better than simply asserting "consensus" and "Evolution did it" over and over again? Wouldn't it even be better if they agreed to meet an compare the evidence they have? Surely if it's as compelling and certain as Dan is suggesting, then this vile sexist would be quickly put in his place and acknowledge the superiority of the opposing worldview. Or maybe he'd simply slink away muttering "God did it." under his breath.
Seriously, aren't there any better scenarios for the Evos than the one Dan's tried to sell?
I do agree that many christians want to maintain some credibility in the eyes of those who place Science above all, while still clinging to some vestige of their faith. That are worried about being labeled as a rube or worse.
I tend to wonder why they're so desperate for approval from people who mostly will never accept them as full members of the club as long as they hold on to their faith.
Art,
Of course, on top of that, one must wonder why the proponents of Evolutionary dogma have been so content with lies, hoaxes, and falsehoods as the best evidence they had for decades. If the evidence is so compelling, why were the lies published in textbooks late into the 20th century?
Craig... " If you want to put your faith In a consensus of ...fallen humans..."
First of all, I didn't say I'm "putting my faith in... " I'm saying that, given a complex subject requiring special training and a vast consensus of experts, it makes sense to think the consensus is more likely right than a tiny minority to be closer to correct.
What are you putting your "faith in..." if not the opinion of the tiny percentage of humans?
Keeping in mind that God did not tell you the answer to evolution. So don't go there.
Part of the problem with spoon feeding Dan the kind of "DATA' that he claims he wants, is that it would require me to go back through multiple resources, search though bookmarks, bibliographies, attributions, and the like so that I can search those sources, and post links which will (if history is a guide) he'll likely ignore.
Now, it would be easier if I could say, "You should check out books X,Y, and Z from authors P,D, and Q. Those books contain extensive quotes, footnotes, bibliographies, and references to more information than you could quickly assimilate.", or "How about you go to A,B,and C blog posts. Within those blog posts, you'll find all sorts of links back to the primary source material so that you can check it out for yourself.". Or "Here are 5-6 links (with other links embedded) to some mainstream scientific sources that might help you understand the issues.".
All of those are things that I've done in the past, and don't recall a single instance where there was ever any interaction with the contents of anything offered. Given that reality, I thin it's understandable why I'd be reluctant to recreate the work that someone else has already completed, footnoted, quoted, and sourced, in order to get around someone's prejudices.
The most egregious example was, "I'm not even going to bother digging into Schaeffer, based on the reviews I've read he's too much of a Calvinist." (It's a paraphrase, I'm not going to dig up the quote, but it's an accurate representation of the gist of the excuse)
The second most egregious example was a post with a list of dozens of books, articles, videos and other resources on a topic. Never had any indication that any of them were read, certainly never saw any refutation of any of them. Given that reality, I probably shouldn't provide as much as I do.
I understand, you're putting your trust in a group of fallen, imperfect humans who are all members of an advocacy group promoting a specific agenda.
Got it.
"Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
You're right, two totally different things. My bad.
FYI, nowhere in this conversation have I EVER offered any arguments, or sources that are based on God telling anyone anything. The fact that you're confused by this fact, as well as being confused by the meaning of the word faith, doesn't give me any hope for a productive outcome.
But you do you and you put your faith in whoever you want. Who am I to try to stop you?
"Craig, I'll answer this question, but THEN are you going to answer mine? Will you admit your stupidly false claims?"
I guess we'll see if you'll actually answer one question, I've likely already answered yours, and pointed out that your "false claim" is simply you putting words in my mouth.
"No. Am I affirming the reality that evolution is affirmed by the vast majority of experts?"
How is this not championing or affirming the worldview associated with Evolution/Naturalism?materialism? Please explain the subtle differences.
"YES. IS that the reality? YES. Do I have any reason to doubt the expert consensus?"
Well, you've asserted that it's the reality but your source doesn't say what you think it says, and I'm not sure that "consensus"=Truth. I've given you some things that might raise doubts, but you've ignored them. Your doubt or lack of doubt is completely disconnected from the evidence that might affect your doubt, because you put four faith or trust in "consensus", not evidence.
"No. Does CRAIG have any reason to doubt the expert consensus?'
Yes, but I've been more immersed in recent evidence than you have so it's not surprising. Maybe you should have looked at the half dozen or so mainstream scientific sources I cited pointing out fatal flaws with much of what underpins Evolutionary thought.
"It appears he thinks so, but he hasn't established that he does or that he has reasonable cause to, if he does. Do you understand the difference?"
I understand that you've been ignoring the half dozen or so links from mainstream scientific sources and that it's easy to make these assumptions based on choosing to ignore things.
" Materialism is a different matter, more complex and I believe with more variations in what it means, so you'd have to ask something more specific."
That's two sentence of saying absolutely nothing of substance. Given what you've said, I suspect you don't understand how closely Materialism/Naturalism both philosophical and methodological are intertwined with Evolution. In fact, a prior commitment to both philosophical and methodological Materialism/Naturalism is essentially a requirement to be taken seriously in the Evolutionary community. Which, of course, precludes any other possibilities regardless of the evidence or logical conclusion.
"Naturalism, I'm inclined to say No, I don't affirm that. With the caveat that perhaps we have no way of objectively proving spiritual matters."
Naturalism isn't a spiritual matter, it's functionally another term for materialism.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"Now, having dealt with that, answering your question as directly as possible,"
Other than actually answering with anything of substance or accuracy...
"...do you recognize that just because some evolution advocates also advocate other philosophies/ideas, that does not mean I affirm those other philosophies/ideas?"
Do you realize that I never said that you do? Try reading what I actually said, and rethinking your response in light of what I've already explained about your error.
"For instance, YOU FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins' quote..."
Actually, no I didn't. So this entire phrase is actually false. Well done.
" But not all evolution advocates would agree that there is no evil, no good, but this is not required thought when it comes to evolution. Correct?"
Well other than the fact that Dawkins is literally the most influential writer/advocate for Evolution in the last 40 years or so and wrote "the most influential" book on the subject since Darwin, and influenced the thought of an entire generation, I think you're underselling this point. Of course, you assume that there isn't more of the same out there, and won't look for it. You also ignore the results of the Pew piece.
"But why WOULD they insist that the can objectively prove what they (and you) can't prove?"
Read the Dawkins quote again, do you really think that he really means that he's not stating an objective fact? But, beyond that I haven't and I wouldn't, I'm simply quoting.
"Now, we'll see if you'll answer the questions put to you, raised by your own words and false claims about me."
Done. Of course, you haven't actually accurately quoted me which renders your whole false claims idiocy toothless pablum.
Craig... "Why wouldn't she simply say,..."
Come on. You're not this Stupid!
"She" didn't say that because "she" wasn't a real person. It's a made up scenario - a parable, if you will - so this man could get his jollies pretending to be smarter than a scientist or a teacher. It's not real! It never happened in the real world. He made up that conversation.
What part about that are you failing to understand? Do you seriously come on seriously think this is for real? You're not that dance. Your not that up to. Your not that damned stupid.
This is - again - part of the problem of modern conservatism. They are willing to pass on stupidly false claims and they're willing to believe clearly fabricated stories.
This conversation May perhaps have been based on a similar real life conversation. But this is not that conversation. It's lacking in verisimilitude. Come on.
All of that is just an aside but... good Lord.
I tried to access Dan's latest link attempting to discredit Stephen Meyer. The link is broken. Too bad, though I doubt it succeeded, and I doubt Dan actually read and studied it, looking to see if the criticisms were dealing with the full context of Meyer's words at the very least. Dan rarely spends the time, choosing instead to simply post what he thinks will do the job for him.
Craig, I eventually give up on these conversations because there are just so damned many stupidly false claims and/or stupid misunderstandings and this conversation is no different. It's just too much work.
But for now, there's this... Craig:
"Well, you've asserted that it's the reality but your source doesn't say what you think it says, and I'm not sure that "consensus"=Truth.
I factually have not asserted that it (evolution) is the reality.
I factually have not said that consensus = truth.
Do you understand that much?
I've stated that the vast majority of expert opinion is overwhelmingly saying that evolution is the best explanation of reality. I've stated that, with no other reason to suspect the opinion of 9.7/10 experts, I've no reason to doubt their conclusions.
Do you understand your error?
Another incredibly stupidly false claim from Craig... "I understand, you're putting your trust in a group of fallen, imperfect humans who are all members of an advocacy group promoting a specific agenda."
Of course, I'm not. I'm saying that a huge consensus of expert opinion is telling and I have no reason-based reasons to suspect that they're far off in their conclusions. That's not "putting my trust in a group of fallen... humans" ANY MORE than YOU citing a few outliers who are advocating ID due to their faith is "putting your trust in them..." Or ARE you putting your trust in them?
Another question to go unanswered.
Dan... "For instance, YOU FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins' quote..."
Craig responded: "Actually, no I didn't. So this entire phrase is actually false. Well done."
Sigh. You FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins WORLDVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THAT QUOTE and it is a God damned stupid-as-hell lie from the pits of hell.
Now. IF you can affirm your stupidly false claims, I might deal with more of your inanities, but I'm tired of your hubris and your dodging of questions.
The ball's in your park. Will you be an adult or will you stuff your head further up your pharisaical arse?
"Craig, I eventually give up on these conversations because there are just so damned many stupidly false claims and/or stupid misunderstandings and this conversation is no different."
You're right, unfortunately you don't seem to consider the possibility that you might bear the responsibility for any of this. I've clearly and repeatedly pointed out your false claims, and false premises, yet you pretend as if they don't exist. If you choose to ignore reality and to dwell in a fantasy world of your own creation, I can't do anything except point out your falsehoods and move on. I see you've abandoned that faux outrage dismount for the faux humility dismount. If doesn't matter, it all boils down to you leaving with multiple questions unanswered, claims unsupported, and falsehoods unacknowledged. But, that's how things always go with you at other people's blogs.
"Do you understand that much?"
I'd post your quotes to the contrary, but it wouldn't matter. You'll play the semantic "I haven't used those exact words" game that we're so used to, which is tiresome.
"Do you understand that much?"
Sure, whatever you say.
"ANY MORE than YOU citing a few outliers who are advocating ID due to their faith is "putting your trust in them..." Or ARE you putting your trust in them?"
I HAVEN"T CITED ANYONE WHO IS ADVOCATING ID in this thread. I've simply given you a list of people that goes beyond Ken Ham, in case you ever want to pull your head out of your ass and dig deeper. Clearly you don't.
If you want to argue that you believe these "experts", but don't trust them, that's fine. It's an idiotic, hair splitting, semantic, distinction without a difference, but if it salves your ego go for it.
"You FALSELY CLAIMED that I affirmed Dawkins WORLDVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THAT QUOTE"
You need to start by carefully reading, and rereading what I actually wrote, if you need to look up some words, have a dictionary handy. Once you've done that, then try to accurately represent what I actually said. (It's telling that you still don't quote me, but paraphrase me instead)
1. You are affirming the worldview that underlies Evolution?Naturalism/Materialism.
2. Dawkins is the most significant spokesman for that worldview since Darwin or Huxley.
3. Dawkins literally wrote the book on modern Evolutionary thought.
4. Dawkins is literally stating his scientific conclusions as a fact.
5. I'm sorry that your ignorance regarding the worldview you are affirming has led you to this place of anger. But maybe you should be angry at the "experts" you are so willing to accept as purveyors of fact.
6. Are you suggesting that Dawkins is wrong, and that you are right?
7. If so, please explain.
8. No, I offered the opinion that you affirm the worldview that is largely shaped by Dawkins and that the quotes I've offered are representative of that worldview.
9. Are you suggesting that you firmly believe in Evolution, as long as you can define it and cherry pick the parts that don't offend you?
10. Are you suggesting that you are better able to speak authoritatively on matters of Evolution than Dawkins is?
11. Is Dawkins one of the 97% that you believe are correct and that lead you to conclude that Evolution is true?
"...and it is a God damned stupid-as-hell lie from the pits of hell."
Ahhhhhhh, the "pits of a place that doesn't exist and that Dan doesn't believe in" tactic. But I guess your lies are from the realms of Heaven or someplace nice.
"Now. IF you can affirm your stupidly false claims, I might deal with more of your inanities, but I'm tired of your hubris and your dodging of questions. The ball's in your park. Will you be an adult or will you stuff your head further up your pharisaical arse?"
Now we get back to the faux outrage dismount. I'll make a deal with you. If you'll go back and deal with all of the bullshit false claims, misrepresentations, out right lies, and questions you've ignored, I'll play along. As long as you're going to try this bullshit, I'll just keep pointing out your lies and bullshit.
Pharisee, heal thyself.
There's nothing of substance to parse in Dan's comment about the conversation in the original post, and my alternatives, so I won't bother. I'll point out a few things instead.
1. Dan is assuming that the conversation is 100% fabricated without any evidence that he's shown us.
2. If Dan is right, then he's bitching because someone else is using his technique of using a hypothetical to make a point, and doing it better than Dan does.
3. Dan bitching about someone using a hypothetical is incredibly hypocritical.
4. As we've seen the technique outlined in the original post, is quite effective.
5. Dan bitches about the hypothetical, but feels compelled to embellish it with additional hypothetical details that he's added to suit his narrative.
6. While botching about the alleged hypothetical, we are treated to Dan engaging in ad hom attacks, broad generalizations, and all sorts of unproven claims.
Art,
It's somehow fitting that Dan's link that is supposed to be conclusive proof, doesn't work. I agree that it leads one to the conclusion that he didn't actually click on it, let alone read it.
Art,
Earlier you referenced WK's post about Meyer, and his three books. Although I haven't read them, I would be willing to bet that Meyers liberally quotes and addresses what Evolution devotees say and believe. Now someone like Dan, who's demonstrated preconceptions and biases about Meyer, still might find something of value in these books. It's likely that Dan might not be familiar with some of the issues Merers raises, or with the evidence for or against those things. Yet reading Meyers work might lead him to a greater understanding about these topics, despite his personal prejudice against Meyer. This is why I believe that it is a mistake to dismiss someone work based on secondhand information or simply because of preconceptions about the person. I've found that I almost always learn something when I read the actual work of people I disagree with instead of listening to what others say about them.
Craig... "You are affirming the worldview that underlies Evolution?Naturalism/Materialism."
Read closely and try to understand...
I am affirming that the vast majority of experts and scientists in the world affirm evolution.
Period.
Now, if you look closely and, you know, read and stuff, you'll notice that I never said anything about affirming a "world view."
Will you admit your mistake and acknowledge the distinction?
Just that much. It should be easy.
Craig... "I HAVEN"T CITED ANYONE WHO IS ADVOCATING ID in this thread."
In this conversation, you lead With links to some scientists or philosophers or theologians who teach ID. Michael Behe, for instance.
I am not the one who introduced ID into this conversation. It was you and your links.
Just to stick to the facts.
"In this conversation, you lead With links to some scientists or philosophers or theologians who teach ID. Michael Behe, for instance. I am not the one who introduced ID into this conversation. It was you and your links. Just to stick to the facts."
This is a flat out lie. These are the links that I posted, minus one that didn't lead anywhere. None of them cite Behe.
I did post another list of people that goe deeper than Ken Ham, but that was just for your edification, I did not cite anything from them.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/exploring-the-universe-is-there-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227123-000-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-fine-tuned/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
https://www.nature.com/articles/302505a0
https://www.nature.com/articles/469294a
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10655
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
"Now, if you look closely and, you know, read and stuff, you'll notice that I never said anything about affirming a "world view." Will you admit your mistake and acknowledge the distinction? Just that much. It should be easy."
I'm sorry, this raises questions.
Are you denying that there is a worldview shared by those who subscribe to Evolution?Materialism?Naturalism?
Are you suggesting then, that you affirm the "experts", but not their worldview?
Are you suggesting that you only affirm the parts of what "the experts" say that you agree with?
"See, the problem is you are taking crazy, loony bin, entirely loopy and obscenely, stupidly false accusations and saying, hm. I wish it were true, but it's probably not."
Such certainty, absolutely no specificity. Are you suggesting that the Big Bang cosmology is "loopy and obscenely stupidly false"? Are you saying that the multiverse theory is provably True? Are you suggesting that the forces that must be in balance to support life are simply "loony and obscenely stupidly false"? Or do you have an actual example, with actual quotes to support your claims?
"And in so doing, you're treating the vile and false insane as possibly, potentially possible. It's a way of condoning stupidly false claims. And it's why the Republican party today is a vast insipid obscene joke. What responsible adults on the GOP side need to do is soundly condemn such nonsense as the dangerous threat it is."
This just sounds like the rantings of someone who can't prove his claims, answer questions about the topic, has substituted trust in the "majority" for "DATA" or evidence, and who needs an exit strategy that allows them to save face in their own eyes.
Dan,
The problem you have is that you are lashing out at people, not their work. As you have pointed out, you are wholly incapable of judging the work of Behe, you've admitted that you don't understand it.
Let's compare Behe's CV to yours.
A Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, he received his PhD in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. His dissertation was on aspects of sickle-cell disease, and his postdoctoral work on DNA was conducted at the National Institute of Health. With research interests involving the delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures, he wrote what has been arguably the single most effective book so far in bringing the question of Darwin versus Design to public attention, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge of Evolution (Free Press, 1996). The magazines National Review and World both selected it as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.
I could be wrong but, it appears that you graduated from Manuel HS, I believe that you studied journalism at Jefferson Community College for a time, although I don't know if your ever completed your associates degree. I also know that you studied education/teaching for a time as well (Louisville U, if I'm not mistaken.
While I don't intend to denigrate your CV, but I think that by the measure of CV that Behe is certainly more qualified as an "expert" in biochemistry and related fields than you are. It makes me wonder why I should accept you and your second/third hand accounts as credible in the least.
But, this is simply an illustration, not a citation of Behe's work
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1655.summary
It's even peer reviewed. Not that it'll matter to you.
I have a degree in special education from U of L and some graduate studies in environmental education, for what it's worth. I've studied in school and for my own pleasure a good bit in:
journalism, education, special education, disability concerns, mental health matters, environmentalism and urban planning. And, of course, a lifetime of church history and religious studies in a non-scholastic manner.
I'm not saying I have more of a background in science than Behe. I don't. I've been quite clear that I'm not a scientist.
I've said that Behe (who YOU cited, I don't know Behe from a hole in the ground, had never heard his name until I read about him on YOUR link... I'm not looking it up, now, I'm just saying that I learned about that name from you) is a tiny fraction of scientists who is an extreme outlier in the scientific community, one who affirms ID as a scientific theory, which I don't think most scientists would even agree it's a scientific theory. It's more of an apologists' question, lacking the data to make it even as a possible theory.
My question is, WHY would I trust, believe in, agree with some 2-3% of scientists who are outliers on the question of evolution?
You've never given me reasons to doubt the expert consensus. And no, before you make the stupidly false claim again, looking to expert consensus is NOT a logical fallacy.
I apologize for the gaps in your CV. I was working from the bits and pieces you've dropped here and there.
What specific link did I provide you that cited Behe's work as evidence of anything?
The only time I mentioned Behe was as pert of a list of experts (by any rational definition) who are more involved than Ham.
What I find interesting is that you claim you've never heard of Behe, are not qualified to evaluate the quality of the scientific work he's performed, yet you have convinced yourself that he is to be ignored on the topic where he has the education and expertise. somehow you've decided this without actually reading any primary source material. You've based your judgement on a limited amount of second/third hand sources. Sources whose motivation and pre commitments you know nothing about. But that's totally rational.
Again, if you want to trust in the "consensus" of an advocacy group pushing an agenda over actual "DATA", that's your choice not mine.
At least I can trust you not to answer questions, so that hasn't changed.
"My question is, WHY would I trust, believe in, agree with some 2-3% of scientists who are outliers on the question of evolution?"
I don't know. I really don't care. I'm not suggesting you should trust 2-3% of members of an advocacy group pushing an agenda. I'm suggesting that you look at the links I provided to mainstream science publications, and look at the evidence yourself. That (apparently) is the difference between us. I look at the views held by those in your advocacy group (The Big Bounce/Multiverse, etc) the lack of evidence, and the invocation of "Evolution of the gaps", and I ask why I'd accept something as steeled science when it can't be proven.
I think the problem is that I've read quite a bit more of what the folks you trust have said and acknowledged to simply trust them because they're "experts".
At some point don't experts need to prove that what they are saying is True?
Do experts really maintain a series of false claims and hoaxes of "proof" of their claims for decades?
No, I've pointed you toward several reasons to doubt the "consensus" of an advocacy group (not the least of which is the fact that the Pew story doesn't say give you the support you think it does), but you've chosen not to investigate those things.
That's on you, not me.
I firmly believe that the only way you will ever change your mind is if you find the evidence on your own. It's clear that you have multiple excuses to reject what others give you, so why would we bother. Many people would hear a question like, "Where did the information contained in DNA come from, and how did DNA develop the ability to share this information?", and be curious. They'd look for the answer. They'd realize how ridiculous it sounds to say that vast amounts of complex, information and the ability to communicate that information, came from nothing. They'd wonder how an impersonal, purposeless, unguided, random, haphazard, non process has left us convinced that we have purpose.
Some just assume that the "experts" in an advocacy group have answered all those questions, and conclude that they're satisfied with that.
Given your aversion to answering questions, I guess that tells us why you're so comfortable with your anonymous, consensus of the members of an advocacy group.
I think that the most interesting thing about this thread is very simple. The premise of the piece I quoted was pretty simple. It was that the best way to find out the extent of someone's knowledge, or expertise, is by asking them difficult questions. The fact that that simple. logical conclusion is even controversial is simply beyond my understanding. The notion that asking questions from an expert, and expecting answers, is out of bounds is absurd.
But, just look at the rest of the thread.
Dan seems to be saying that he is impressed by this alleged consensus of 97% of some unnamed scientists (there was a similar percentage of scientific consensus for climate change, but a review of the list of scientists show many of them are not of the field that would suggest their opinion matters), while at the same time refusing to affirm his personal opinion on the topic of consensus itself. What good is hyping this consensus if one isn't down with the position? Dan should clarify.
Dan also, as you said, whines about how much trouble it is to resolve all the questions and points of contention within this "conversation" as if he's trying to assert he played no role in just how convoluted it's become. Pretty amazing how common it is when he's involved in a "conversation". I don't recall this trouble where he's not.
Craig... "if you want to trust in the "consensus" of an advocacy group pushing an agenda over actual "DATA", that's your choice not mine."
And you are able to understand the "actual data" better than the vast vast majority of scientists? Or are you trusting in the NON-consensus of a few Christian scientists who disagree with the majority and what THEY say the "facts" are?
What do you base any of that upon? Sounds a bit arrogant, to me.
I'll note that this (in conjunction with your vehement assertions that this topic is too complex for you to understand), is a tacit admission that you DO trust the "consensus" of the members of an advocacy group that was formed to push an agenda over actually looking at the "DATA" yourself.
"And you are able to understand the "actual data" better than the vast vast majority of scientists?"
1. I've never claimed that I could.
2. I can understand it when mainstream scientists are confident that they have "disproved" various notions that are crucial the the "Evolutionary/Materialist?Naturalist" position and worldview.
3. I can look at anyone who pre commits to a conclusion before looking at the evidence, and who remains committed to that conclusion regardless of the evidence, and raise questions.
4. I can look at the fact that for decades the most popular "proofs" of Evolution were known to be false or hoaxes, and yet continued to be offered despite this knowledge.
5. I can look at someone who offers "Evolution did it." or the like in response to questions with skepticism.
6, I can look at the holes, acknowledged by those who support evolution and draw reasonable conclusions from that.
7. I can look at those who hide behind claims of ignorance, and faith in consensus, with skepticism.
8. I can look at the data in the PEW reoprt, and see that it doesn't actually support your "vast majority of scientists" claim.
9 I can look at the fact that you've repeatedly used false claims and misrepresentations in this thread and conclude that you and your hunches are untrustworthy.
19. Since I never claimed I could do what your question suggests, and since Truth isn't decided by vote, I see no reason to defend a position I haven't taken.
"Or are you trusting in the NON-consensus of a few Christian scientists who disagree with the majority and what THEY say the "facts" are?"
No.
"What do you base any of that upon?"
The recent findings of mainstream science that disprove virtually every theory offered as a way to bolster Evolution. The fact that we now know the role that information plays in the whole process and the inability of Evolution to explain how information in vast quantities came from a blind, mindless, undirected, purposeless, random chain of unconnected events.
I was going to call it a process, but process indicates things like intent and purpose, which Evolution doesn't have.
How does something (everything) come from nothing?
How does organized information, come from disorganized purposeless?
Do you believe that human life has meaning and purpose?
Given your penchant for ascribing motives to others, for using ad hom attacks, and to denigrate any who disagree with you, I find your use of "arrogant" a bit strange.
It's especially strange coming from someone who's entire argument essentially boils down to "I have no proof or evidence to offer, but I believe that these anonymous "experts" are worthy of my trust and to convince me that Evolution/Materialism/Naturalism is True beyond any shadow of a doubt.".
I just took a look at the cesspool that is Dan's blog and I came acoss this.
"Craig is haphazardly posting some of my comments but not all and (whether intentionally or not) using the missing comments as "proof" that I'm not addressing questions and concerns."
There was ONE comment I did not post in this thread, and I explained why I didn't. There was another comment that contained the one I deleted, and more, so I posted the longer of the two. Beyond that,as far as I know, I've posted every comment Dan has made. I do occasionally accidentally delete comments and usually acknowledge my mistake and ask for the comment to be re posted. It's also possible that I missed one or two in moderation, although I tend to check to make sure I don't.
"Part of the problem is that the answers/comments are getting jumbled around from one post to the other."
Your comments post on the thread where you make them. I'm not responsible for your mistakes, although I did copy/paste multiple comments from the wrong thread into the right thread. You're welcome.
"Another problem is that you aren't posting all my comments."
As we see in just these few sentences, we have multiple lies, and at least one notion that sounds like a conspiracy theory (the reference to my "intentionally" not posting his comments). Maybe it's paranoia.
The notion that the person who has deleted me so often that I'd copy paste my comments to my blog to preserve an accurate record of what I'd said, is using this tactic is simply sad. I'd be more than justified in applying the rules to him that he applies to others, but I try to give him the grace and freedom, he's denied me at his blog.
Indeed, Dan whines about treatment that is far less severe than how he treats guests at his own blog. Amazing. Next thing you know he'll be comparing you to his troll.
Dan's attacks on "a few Christian scientists" indicate he has no clue as to what these knowledgeable people are doing. Whether one is speaking of them or those Dan seems to favor and not accept at the same time, each group is doing the same thing: looking at the same data and concluding in an opposite manner.
Like you, Craig, I've not read any of Meyer's books, though I've seen numerous speeches, interviews and such to understand that he's not doing anything "unscientific" in concluding something different than the atheist anti-Christian evolutionists to whom Dan defers while still hedging his bets. I'm eager to get all three books now. I've always wanted to read his first two, anyway, and now his third seems to be, for the first time, an actual attempt to use what he's learned to argue for God's existence. Reviews state that his work involves responding to objections stated or likely to be, so that he fills all sorts of holes others assert exist in his arguments. A read will tell the tale in that regard.
I find it curious that Dan is unwilling to accept that anyone might actually have a solid argument for the existence of and Intelligent Designer, regardless of who that designer might be. As one who insists he is Christian (I maintain that's far less evident than the existence of God), one might think he'd harbor some keen interest in such arguments.
I recently saw a story that time did not allow me to read, of a sampling of examples of those who went against scientific consensus only to be proven correct in doing so...some years after their passing. Appealing to consensus is fraught with risk. At best it's a starting point, something to keep in mind, but not a reason in and of itself to reject one's own findings or to the findings of others. As such, I think Dan's objections are motivated by the same desire to reject certain Christian teachings that motivate many atheists in science.
Art,
One of the alleged strengths of Science is that it is always being tested and that big breakthroughs happen when radicals go against the consensus. Yet, if one were to listen to Dan and those who's worldview he shares, they prize and protect consensus. Consensus is the be all and end all of scientific progress. We don't need proof, we don't need evidence, we've got consensus.
At one point the scientific consensus was the everything revolved around the Earth. Not that long ago, the consensus was the we would experience another ice age in my lifetime. At one point the consensus was the Malaria was caused by bad air (hence the name). I think history shows what happens when consensus becomes dogma.
Whenever Dan speaks of "consensus", "peer review" and "experts", he's engaging in blatant intellectual laziness. He can't truly assemble a cogent, coherent argument in support of what he needs to be true. He just defaults to these cheap dodges.
Post a Comment