Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Fervent said:

I'm not sure this is entirely true, as it seems to me among many atheists there is a refusal to acknowledge they have made a metaphysical commitment. And for a decent segment of atheists science fills a pseudo-religious role as they look to it to provide their lives with meaning and morals, and during difficult moments in their lives emerse themselves deeper into their commitments. Rather than recognizing that science cannot even begin to answer questions about God they take the restrictions of science to be a reflection of reality in general. So perhaps there is lip service paid to such a difference, but as a pragmatic function any distinction is often lost.

Click to expand...

Yes, people who don't believe in God don't believe in God, but the theory of evolution is the same for them as it is for scientists who are theists.
So what?

BCP1928 said:

Yes, people who don't believe in God don't believe in God, but the theory of evolution is the same for them as it is for scientists who are theists.
So what?

Click to expand...

The issue comes down to polemics and counter apologetic use, as science in the popular space has been colonized by atheist polemicists such as Richard Dawkins who treat the success of the theory of evolution and the inaccessibility of the question of God's existence to science as evidence that God does not exist. To claim that there is not a metaphysical element to the dispute is little more than a failure to understand the full scope of the issue. The debate is not, in principal, a scientific debate at all. It's a conflict of philosophical approacches to knowledge acquisition coupled with a clash of worldviews. This is especially apparent when the atheist colonization of science is challenged by those who are not acting in opposition to scientific consensus, as rather than allying with believers who wish to uphold the integrity of the scientific enterprise those on the atheist side attempt to silence such voices and place the focus on the most ignorant of creationists. So to claim the metaphysics are irrelevant to the discussion fails to understand the real nature of the debate.

Fervent said:

The issue comes down to polemics and counter apologetic use, as science in the popular space has been colonized by atheist polemicists such as Richard Dawkins who treat the success of the theory of evolution and the inaccessibility of the question of God's existence to science as evidence that God does not exist.

Click to expand...

He is certainly entitled to his opinions.

Fervent said:

To claim that there is not a metaphysical element to the dispute is little more than a failure to understand the full scope of the issue. The debate is not, in principal, a scientific debate at all. It's a conflict of philosophical approacches to knowledge acquisition coupled with a clash of worldviews. This is especially apparent when the atheist colonization of science is challenged by those who are not acting in opposition to scientific consensus, as rather than allying with believers who wish to uphold the integrity of the scientific enterprise those on the atheist side attempt to silence such voices and place the focus on the most ignorant of creationists. So to claim the metaphysics are irrelevant to the discussion fails to understand the real nature of the debate.

Click to expand...

So then why are groups like BioLogos tolerated? Why is the theology of Traditional Christianity not objected to?

BCP1928 said:

He is certainly entitled to his opinions.

Click to expand...

Sure, but if the concern is not allowing science to be a prop for a worldview his posturing and pontificating should face the same sort of scrutiny that other groups using science to push an agenda are.

BCP1928 said:

So then why are groups like BioLogos tolerated? Why is the theology of Traditional Christianity not objected to?

Click to expand...

Tolerated by who? Just take a look at the replies I have received in this thread from a cadre of atheists who have taken an inability of science to make an asseessment of supernatural claims with a genuine lack of evidence for such claims. It's clearly not just a matter of disagreement over a scientific theory, especially since ID and similar pose no threat to mainstream evolutionary theory and are confined to a group who are simply looking to prop up their religious beliefs in pseudoscientific garb. It is not enough to support evolutionary theory for such individuals, and the ideological nature of their posturing is a far bigger issue than any sort of scientific question.

Fervent said:

Sure, but if the concern is not allowing science to be a prop for a worldview his posturing and pontificating should face the same sort of scrutiny that other groups using science to push an agenda are.

Click to expand...

Not allowing? What agenda? Besides being atheist, I suppose.

Fervent said:

Tolerated by who? Just take a look at the replies I have received in this thread from a cadre of atheists who have taken an inability of science to make an asseessment of supernatural claims with a genuine lack of evidence for such claims. It's clearly not just a matter of disagreement over a scientific theory, especially since ID and similar pose no threat to mainstream evolutionary theory and are confined to a group who are simply looking to prop up their religious beliefs in pseudoscientific garb. It is not enough to support evolutionary theory for such individuals, and the ideological nature of their posturing is a far bigger issue than any sort of scientific question.

Click to expand...

Tolerated by these militant atheists you are talking about.

BCP1928 said:

Not allowing? What agenda? Besides being atheist, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Not simply being an atheist, but injecting atheistic metaphysics into a metaphysically neutral research programme. You know, the metaphysical position you claimed receives full recognition as being distinct from the methods employed.

BCP1928 said:

Tolerated by these militant atheists you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Being ignored isn't really being tolerated, it's just being ignored.

Fervent said:

Not simply being an atheist, but injecting atheistic metaphysics into a metaphysically neutral research programme. You know, the metaphysical position you claimed receives full recognition as being distinct from the methods employed.

Click to expand...

I will certainly want a specific example so I can be sure I know what you are talking about.

Fervent said:

Being ignored isn't really being tolerated, it's just being ignored.

Click to expand...

Of course, but under the circumstances it's just as good, given that atheists are aggressive as you seem to think.

BCP1928 said:

I will certainly want a specific example so I can be sure I know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, a specific example doesn't pop out. It's more his general demeanor in coupling his atheist disbelief with scientific positivism.

BCP1928 said:

Of course, but under the circumstances it's just as good, given that atheists are aggressive as you seem to think.

Click to expand...

Not really, because paying attention to groups such as that would run counter as it would be an admission that the issue is not evolution vs God. Placing the focus on Creationists spouting off pseudoscience is far more optically effective than recognizing that theistic belief is compatible with an uncompromised acceptance of the consensus opinion of biologists. That such Creationists are a particularly vocal fringe group who left to their own devices will either disappear on their own, or become so insular that they have no influence on public discourse is irrelevant which is why a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to these groups by such polemicists.

Fervent said:

I make no objections to evolution,

Click to expand...

Then what are you arguing about here?

Fervent said:

other than that atheist polemicists and Christian fundamentalists have twisted it into an either/or decision between belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

Now it's "atheist polemicists", eh? As a scientist, I don't care how Christians or any other group comes to term with the realities of science. What I do have a problem with are:

1. Claiming some religious interpretation is "scientific" (ID -- I''m looking at you).
2. Offering as "evidence" against a scientific claim a religious belief.
3. Making science somehow about "atheists". Come on creationists you are arguing against the science, not the non-belief. Non-belief is irrelevant.

2PhiloVoid said:

Summaries NEVER equate to a presentation of convincing evidence. Ever. Would you have made a decision to follow Jesus if all you had was the letter to the Galatians, and only that to refer to? I doubt you would have.

Click to expand...

That’s a really weak comparison. When I heard the Gospel, someone explained it to me clearly. I wasn’t handed a Bible and told, “Go read it all and figure it out yourself.” If you believe your evidence is strong, then you should be able to present it concisely. Dumping a 50-page paper isn’t a fair or effective way to communicate. And in the end, the evidence that was meant to be in those documents was not there anyway.

Throughout the debate, I’ve consistently asked for clear, step-by-step explanations of how complex biological systems, such as the circulatory system or bacterial flagellum, could evolve through gradual, unguided mutations. In return, I was given long academic papers and links, often without direct answers to my specific questions.
The evidence provided was always interpreted through a naturalistic lens, assuming:
-That natural processes alone can account for all biological complexity.
-That similarities in form imply common ancestry.
-That undirected mutations and natural selection are sufficient creative mechanisms.
-That God must be excluded from scientific explanations (methodological naturalism).

These are not neutral facts. They are presumptions that shape how evidence is understood.
I challenged these assumptions by pointing out:
-Irreducible complexity cannot be explained by stepwise evolution unless each intermediate is both functional and advantageous, which has not been convincingly shown.
-Observing adaptation (microevolution) does not demonstrate large-scale transformations (macroevolution).
-Appeals to similarity (e.g., between birds and dinosaurs) are not proof of ancestry—design similarities can exist without common descent.

When I requested concise summaries or specific examples, I was instead handed massive documents to read and told to dig for the answers myself. This tactic avoids directly engaging and shifts the burden of proof, which should fall on the one making the claim.

In short, I believe the evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. The real issue isn’t the data, it’s the worldview behind it. For me, the biblical account provides a coherent, purposeful explanation that doesn’t depend on speculative mechanisms or exclude the Designer by assumption.
Blessings

Hans Blaster said:

Then what are you arguing about here?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read my contributions if you wish to know, because my contribution to the threads topic has been a)to press an IDer on his claims about "irreducible complexity" and "macroevolution" and b)to point out to that user that he isn't engaging with the counterarguments at all and both sides are simply talking past each other. I, personally, unreservedly accept evolution as an accurate description of biological history. However, I object to it being presented as requisite upon accepting the theory of evolution an acceptance of non-involvement of God. Science simply doesn't have the tools to address questions such as that, and it is as much of an abuse to prop up atheist disbelief through science as it is to inject theistic claims into science. The issue is not evolution vs God, but science vs pseudoscience.

Hans Blaster said:

Now it's "atheist polemicists", eh? As a scientist, I don't care how Christians or any other group comes to term with the realities of science. What I do have a problem with are:

Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't. Which is why you frequent the science section of a Christian forum.

Hans Blaster said:

1. Claiming some religious interpretation is "scientific" (ID -- I''m looking at you).
2. Offering as "evidence" against a scientific claim a religious belief.
3. Making science somehow about "atheists". Come on creationists you are arguing against the science, not the non-belief. Non-belief is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Atheists have made science about atheism, though creationists have been complicit in doing so. It started with Thomas Henry Huxley who used the theory of evolution as a cudgel to attack Christianity and craftily needled more fundamentalist Christians into engaging with him in public spaces, and atheists have colonized science ever since by claiming their disbelief is somehow related to evidence from a field of inquiry that is properly silent on questions of theology, in effect making it speak to issues that it cannot legitimately speak.

1Tonne said:

That’s a really weak comparison. When I heard the Gospel, someone explained it to me clearly. I wasn’t handed a Bible and told, “Go read it all and figure it out yourself.” If you believe your evidence is strong, then you should be able to present it concisely. Dumping a 50-page paper isn’t a fair or effective way to communicate. And in the end, the evidence that was meant to be in those documents was not there anyway

Click to expand...

Do you not think there might be a difference between something like the Bible; a collection of stories, poetry, and songs that was compiled and collated thousands of years ago, versus the works of biological science regarding something that is still being worked on and can change day to day and requires a major understanding of the thing you're railing against to understand it?

... just food for thought.

1Tonne said:

That’s a really weak comparison. When I heard the Gospel, someone explained it to me clearly. I wasn’t handed a Bible and told, “Go read it all and figure it out yourself.” If you believe your evidence is strong, then you should be able to present it concisely. Dumping a 50-page paper isn’t a fair or effective way to communicate. And in the end, the evidence that was meant to be in those documents was not there anyway.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between being told a summary of an event and its meaning, and being given papers that explain the state of empricial evidence and its implications. The length and depth of those papers are not intended to overwhelm you, but to demonstrate the mountains of evidence that speaks in favor of an evolutionary model.

1Tonne said:

Throughout the debate, I’ve consistently asked for clear, step-by-step explanations of how complex biological systems, such as the circulatory system or bacterial flagellum, could evolve through gradual, unguided mutations. In return, I was given long academic papers and links, often without direct answers to my specific questions.
The evidence provided was always interpreted through a naturalistic lens, assuming:
-That natural processes alone can account for all biological complexity.
-That similarities in form imply common ancestry.
-That undirected mutations and natural selection are sufficient creative mechanisms.
-That God must be excluded from scientific explanations (methodological naturalism).

Click to expand...

None of those things are presumptions, the first is a conclusion based on the repeated successes the model has demonstrated in making predictions. The second is an inference based on observations, the third is a description of the model, and the last is a misunderstanding on your part of what makes science science(which is following a procedure and limiting the scope of inquiry to only those things that are most salient to whatever question is being addressed). God isn't excluded from science so much as unnecessary for science to address. For example, if you were troubleshooting an engine your sole concern would be the mechanical operations of the engine and theological questions would be irrelevant noise. When investigating biological history, the only thing that comes into consideration is those things we can test for which are the effects of "natural" processes.

1Tonne said:

These are not neutral facts. They are presumptions that shape how evidence is understood.
I challenged these assumptions by pointing out:
-Irreducible complexity cannot be explained by stepwise evolution unless each intermediate is both functional and advantageous, which has not been convincingly shown.
-Observing adaptation (microevolution) does not demonstrate large-scale transformations (macroevolution).
-Appeals to similarity (e.g., between birds and dinosaurs) are not proof of ancestry—design similarities can exist without common descent.

Click to expand...

"Irreducible omplexity" is not a proven concept, and there are models(which you have been provided) that provide mechanisms to address the specific elements that suppoedly make structures "irreducibly complex". Additionally, there is no true difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because biological flora an fauna appear to exist on a continuum. So concepts like "species" are more functional fictions than concrete realities, there is no wall at which the mechanism must change to explain "macroevolution". Your arguments don't deal with the empirical facts, they rely on concepts that require misunderstandings about the model and scientific process as a whole.

1Tonne said:

When I requested concise summaries or specific examples, I was instead handed massive documents to read and told to dig for the answers myself. This tactic avoids directly engaging and shifts the burden of proof, which should fall on the one making the claim.

Click to expand...

You were given multiple explanations and then massive documents backing up those explanations. You were provided by @The Barbarian two conceptual models that demonstrate the concept of "irreducible complexity" is flawed to put it mildly. You've been provided the evidence and salient objections to your conceptual model, and you have failed to make a case for "irreducible complexity" in any way, shape or form. You've simply asserted that it is a thing.

1Tonne said:

In short, I believe the evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. The real issue isn’t the data, it’s the worldview behind it. For me, the biblical account provides a coherent, purposeful explanation that doesn’t depend on speculative mechanisms or exclude the Designer by assumption.
Blessings

Click to expand...

The issue is you're starting with your conclusion, and then looking for "scientific" means of justifying it. It doesn't appear you're genuinely concerned with evidence, because you make no attempt to interact with the evidence you've been presented. You camp in assertions about things that do not match the realities of what is under study, and it is clear there is a direct relationship between your fundamentalist beliefs and your objection to the theory of evolution.

River Jordan said:

If it helps, I won't be posting much here, if at all. Almost everything I've posted has been ignored and I just don't have the time each day to try and elbow my way past all the other science advocates just so I can debate with a creationist who's doing little more than repeating decades old talking points.

So you can post as you wish with no fear of me reporting anything.

Click to expand...

What you have written has been read and thanks for writing it.

Fervent said:

Off the top of my head, a specific example doesn't pop out. It's more his general demeanor in coupling his atheist disbelief with scientific positivism.

Not really, because paying attention to groups such as that would run counter as it would be an admission that the issue is not evolution vs God. Placing the focus on Creationists spouting off pseudoscience is far more optically effective than recognizing that theistic belief is compatible with an uncompromised acceptance of the consensus opinion of biologists. That such Creationists are a particularly vocal fringe group who left to their own devices will either disappear on their own, or become so insular that they have no influence on public discourse is irrelevant which is why a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to these groups by such polemicists.

Click to expand...

If I'm understanding you correctly, I get where you're coming from. All to often the creationism v. evolution debates just end up being atheists v. fundamentalist Christians, while reasonable people who know science, accept it, and defend it while also being theists (or even Christians) are generally ignored.

Why? IMO it's because, who wants to interact with reasonable but boring people when there's much more "entertaining" people present?

Bradskii said:

What you have written has been read and thanks for writing it.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much! It's just difficult for me to post a reply to someone during a break, come back later and see two or three more pages have been added to the thread and the person I replied to basically posted back to everyone else but me.

It quickly makes a person think to themselves, why am I bothering?

I love how casually anonymous internet forum participants toss around terms like "pseudoscience" in reference to ID and to its proponents as "closet creationists." Do folks really think that men and women of the caliber of John Lennox, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe and many others with impeccable academic and scientific credentials - indeed, Nobel laureates like Charles Townes (laureate in physics), Brian Josephson (ditto) and Gerhard Ertl (chemistry) - just kind of go all goofy when it comes to ID? Their religious beliefs override their critical-thinking skills and they can't recognize bogus pseudoscience when they're swimming in it? Is that plausible? Lennox, whose credentials are about as impeccable as they get, has written extensively on why ID is legitimate science. It's all simply a matter of the inference to the best explanation - which may or may not be ID, but ID certainly deserves a place at the table (unless the table is restricted to those irrevocably wedded to philosophical naturalism, as those so wedded would like it to be).

These continual references to ID as though it were beyond the pale simply demonstrate that you don't really know what you're talking about. Perhaps Hans Blaster and others who claim to be scientists would like to share some of their own academic credentials and peer-reviewed work so we may usefully compare them with, say, that of John Lennox? He holds three doctorates, has authored more than 70 peer-reviewed articles in mathematics, and is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford - but what does he know?

(No, I'm not a scientist. I'm a journalist and lawyer.)

River Jordan said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, I get where you're coming from. All to often the creationism v. evolution debates just end up being atheists v. fundamentalist Christians, while reasonable people who know science, accept it, and defend it while also being theists (or even Christians) are generally ignored.

Why? IMO it's because, who wants to interact with reasonable but boring people when there's much more "entertaining" people present?

Click to expand...

There is that, but I think it is at least partially or in some cases a matter of narrative creation and mockery by proxy. Essentially, YECs create a caricature of believers and allow for atheists to feel superior in not being foolish enough to believe in such fairy tales. It's been that way from the outset, where reasonable believers like Darwin were cast aside as vocal atheists like Thomas Henry Huxley used evolution as part of their crusade against religion. The two extremes tend to play against each other, and as the underlying causes of the conflict go unaddressed the appearance is that YECs represent mainstream belief, especially because most Christians are less passionate about defending their positions in either direction. It's in the interest of atheist polemics to present Christianity as anti-intellectual, and YECs tend to play right into their hands.

Fervent said:

Perhaps you should read my contributions if you wish to know,

Click to expand...

I specifically meant in your interactions with me.

Fervent said:

because my contribution to the threads topic has been a)to press an IDer on his claims about "irreducible complexity" and "macroevolution" and b)to point out to that user that he isn't engaging with the counterarguments at all and both sides are simply talking past each other.

Click to expand...

I was not paying attention to your conversations with others because all of our interactions have gone in to "metaphysics". (Ugh.)

Fervent said:

I, personally, unreservedly accept evolution as an accurate description of biological history.

Click to expand...

Well that's good.

Fervent said:

However, I object to it being presented as requisite upon accepting the theory of evolution an acceptance of non-involvement of God. Science simply doesn't have the tools to address questions such as that,

Click to expand...

As I suspect you know, science doesn't address such question. Gods are unneeded hypotheses in science.

Fervent said:

and it is as much of an abuse to prop up atheist disbelief through science as it is to inject theistic claims into science.

Click to expand...

Sigh.

Fervent said:

The issue is not evolution vs God, but science vs pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

On this I would agree.

Fervent said:

I'm sure you don't. Which is why you frequent the science section of a Christian forum.

Click to expand...

I came to this site about a decade ago following a chain of links through various boards discussing a particular (non-religious) pseudo-science. I looked around all of the boards and I found this one interesting: creationism, other pseudoscience, and sometimes even real science. (Alas this thread was in the first category.) It was readable, active, and well managed. I found my self reading it regularly and eventually decided I wanted to participate.

Fervent said:

Atheists have made science about atheism, though creationists have been complicit in doing so.

Click to expand...

If you say so, but I don't think so. On this board, there is a complicating factor -- the religious status labels. Without them, I'm sure I'd get accused of 'atheism' for arguing against creationism (as non-atheists often do), but with the labels, they can literally check, so instead I get the "you only believe X because you are an atheist" when my position on creationism and evolution hasn't changed since long before I left the church.

Fervent said:

It started with Thomas Henry Huxley who used the theory of evolution as a cudgel to attack Christianity and craftily needled more fundamentalist Christians into engaging with him in public spaces,

Click to expand...

I had no idea Huxley was an atheist. I can't say I've ever paid much attention to him in the past.

Fervent said:

and atheists have colonized science ever since by claiming their disbelief is somehow related to evidence from a field of inquiry that is properly silent on questions of theology, in effect making it speak to issues that it cannot legitimately speak.

Click to expand...

Colonized so well, I don't even know which of the other scientists are atheists or Christians or whatever. It just isn't important to the practice or sharing of science.

1Tonne said:

Dumping a 50-page paper isn’t a fair or effective way to communicate.

Click to expand...

Tell me you've never worked in science without actually saying you've never worked in science.

1Tonne said:

When I requested concise summaries or specific examples, I was instead handed massive documents to read and told to dig for the answers myself.

Click to expand...

Yeah, welcome to science bud. Do the work.

1Tonne said:

In short, I believe the evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. The real issue isn’t the data, it’s the worldview behind it. For me, the biblical account provides a coherent, purposeful explanation that doesn’t depend on speculative mechanisms or exclude the Designer by assumption.
Blessings

Click to expand...

As a working scientist myself I'll give you a little FYI: no one who actually works in science cares how you interpret evidence, particularly if you only post in religious forums. Probably 99.99% of scientists will never know about any of anyways.