Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, I missed that he was quoting someone else, I thought those were his words in red. My apologies.

Understandable. Some people do put links at the bottom instead of the top from sources they quote from and it can get confusing.

 

[Bradskii]

Not all of them. There are many honest and informed YECs...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse...etc

That is just the weirdest position. The guy admits that there is a galactic amount of genuine evidence to support evolution. But then says 'But hey, I'm going to reject it all anyway.'

It seems that he just wants to bolster his bona fides as a scientific literate and open minded individual so that it cuts off any arguments that accuse him of not being knowledgeable enough and close minded. Those two positions are not incompatible. Maybe he knows more about evolution than any of us. But his final statement proves that he is, by definition, close minded.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is just the weirdest position. The guy admits that there is a galactic amount of genuine evidence to support evolution. But then says 'But hey, I'm going to reject it all anyway.'

It seems that he just wants to bolster his bona fides as a scientific literate and open minded individual so that it cuts off any arguments that accuse him of not being knowledgeable enough and close minded. Those two positions are not incompatible. Maybe he knows more about evolution than any of us. But his final statement proves that he is, by definition, close minded.

He's honest about it. Like Dr. Harold Coffin, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Gerald Aardsma, and many others, they admit what the evolution indicates, but prefer their understanding of scripture. If every YEC was that honest, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Bradskii]

He's honest about it. Like Dr. Harold Coffin, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Gerald Aardsma, and many others, they admit what the evolution indicates, but prefer their understanding of scripture. If every YEC was that honest, there wouldn't be a problem.

It's still a problem. There are those that argue from ignorance. The 'how come there are still monkeys' group. But this guy seems to be saying that he accepts the evidence for evolution. But then, at the same time, rejects it.

It's like accepting the evidence that the world is round but still insisting that it's flat.

Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[The Barbarian]

He's leaning on the fact that theories are only provisionally true. No matter how mathematically certain we are, there is always a (perhaps infinitely tiny) chance that we are wrong. And there's his out.

"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives."
Dr. Todd Wood

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@The Barbarian I'm so sorry: I got my threads mixed up.

 

[Job 33:6]

He's leaning on the fact that theories are only provisionally true. No matter how mathematically certain we are, there is always a (perhaps infinitely tiny) chance that we are wrong. And there's his out.

"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives."
Dr. Todd Wood

This makes me wonder why he denies it if he acknowledge its success?

 

[The Barbarian]

This makes me wonder why he denies it if he acknowledge its success?

Well, that's a good question. One prominent creationist I had an email discussion with, actually published papers in which he assumed evolution. It wasn't Dr. Wood, but he likewise agreed that the theory had great explanatory power.

 

[The Barbarian]

We should not be distracted by their grift. "ID" *IS* creationism. It's not the same as YEC, but neither is OEC the same as YEC, but it all three are creationism.

Michael Behe claims to be an evolutionist. Michael Denton even asserts that living things were produced by natural processes built into natural laws. So there's a wide disparity in opinions among IDers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Michael Behe claims to be an evolutionist. Michael Denton even asserts that living things were produced by natural processes built into natural laws. So there's a wide disparity in opinions among IDers.

I find their bleatings unconvincing.

 

[The Barbarian]

I urge all to read a single book.

Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis

Here's a quite from more recent book by Denton, with a more realistic assessment:

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Michael Denton "Nature's Destiny" (page xvii-xviii).
(my emphasis)

 

[Bradskii]

@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.
and am moving around countries for next four weeks

Welcome back, Mike. We look forward to you joining the discussion. Assuming that you've been let back in...

 

[Ophiolite]

Here's a quite from more recent book by Denton, with a more realistic assessment:

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Michael Denton "Nature's Destiny" (page xvii-xviii).
(my emphasis)

I am confused. My copy of Nature's Destiny is dated 1998. You state the book is more recent than "Evolution - Still A Theory in Crisis", yet the latter was first published, as far as I can determine, in 2016. What am I missing?

 

[The Barbarian]

I am confused. My copy of Nature's Destiny is dated 1998. You state the book is more recent than "Evolution - Still A Theory in Crisis", yet the latter was first published, as far as I can determine, in 2016. What am I missing?

I missed the "still." He added "still" to his original title for the second book. While Michael Denton completely recognizes the fact of organic evolution, he disagrees with Darwinian theory because it lacks a specific teleological statement. Because Dr. Denton is an agnostic, Darwin's idea that God created the first living things does not sit well with him. Where Denton and Darwin differ is that Darwin's religious beliefs did not enter into his theory, while Denton's outlook is that something is forcing evolution into specific directions.

Which is kinda like St. Thomas Aquinas, who asserted that God can use contingency as well as necessity in Divine providence.

My point is that Denton is an evolutionist; he just thinks (something) is intentionally directing reality. Which I think is true, only much more elegantly and subtly than Denton seems to think.

 

[Buzzard3]

You seem to be saying that the theory of evolution must be wrong because it is not complete or perfect,

Science can't even demonstrate that a natural process was responsible for responsible for the history of life on, let alone describe what that process actually was.

That naturalist abiogenesis must be wrong because it is not fully understood. Never mind, but just this word of advice: anybody

No one will ever know how life began. The only way someone could demonstrate that knowledge would be by producing a viable organism from inanimate matter. It ain't gunna happen.

 

[Buzzard3]

Michael Denton completely recognizes the fact of organic evolution

What is "the fact of organic evolution"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science can't even demonstrate that a natural process was responsible for responsible for the history of life on, let alone describe what that process actually was.

But it can explain it and has explained what it is though. It's called the theory of evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

But it can explain it and has explained what it is though. It's called the theory of evolution.

I'm not talking about an explanation. An explanation doesn't demonstrate that the history of life on earth was the result of a natural process.

And how can you claim that it can be explained when you can't prove that your explanation is correct?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not talking about an explanation. An explanation doesn't demonstrate that the history of life on earth was the result of a natural process.

And how can you claim that it can be explained when you can't prove that your explanation is correct?

But you can't get the explanation without being able to demonstrate the explanation is fact, especially in science. Like.. you can actually look this stuff up yourself, it is easily and readily available in pretty simplistic terms to understand.

And science doesn't 'prove' anything. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. All science does is present the evidence that is available and says "This is where our current understanding is." And the current understanding from the evidence is that the theory of evolution is fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

All science does is present the evidence that is available ...

Evidence can be manipulated.

From AI Overview:

Evidence can be manipulated. It is possible to alter, conceal, falsify, or destroy evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation or legal proceeding. This can involve physical evidence, digital evidence, or even witness testimony.