Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

HBP said:

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).

Click to expand...

In short, yes it's plausible. And for my part, I refer to it as pseudoscience because it is a conclusion looking for evidence rather than a procedural model. It's built on conceivability arguments like "irreducible complexity", not on recursive modeling. While the line between science and pseudoscience can at times be blurry, what(for me) makes science science is that it is thoroughly procedural, which ID is not.

HBP said:

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 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?

Click to expand...

It's just the opposite, understanding the appeal of ID makes its non-scientific character obvious. It's not about incrementally improving a model, but in asserting unasailable concepts. It relies on selective consideration of the evidence, and refusal to engage with the full scope of the current state of empirical science. It's not a matter of intelligence, or lack thereof, but motives and procedures.

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.

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

Click to expand...

I guess you told me in my utter ignorance, didn't you? Excuse me while I go burn my diplomas.

But I do agree with you that the our personal interpretations are influenced heavily by whatever praxis we bring with us to the data.

HBP said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes because I've read their material. It's why Michael Behe publishes articles in scientific journals about biochem, but not ID.

HBP said:

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).

Click to expand...

Those are all claims, which generally mean nothing in science. If Lennox or any other creationist thinks they have a better way to do things, then they need to go out and do it and show everyone how much better it is.

HBP said:

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.)

Click to expand...

I guess you aren't aware that the scientific legitimacy of a claim isn't established by credentials. FYI, it's not. The creationists need to do the work and show how their ideas and explanations are better and lead to new avenues of study.

If they don't, then it's nothing but a bunch of unsupported claims.

HBP said:

Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one. Philosophical materialism - which is indeed the equivalent of religious dogma - leaves no room for anything but some form of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

Philosophical materialism? A kind of religious dogma? These lead to a theory of evolution? There's me thinking that it was lots of evidence.

HBP said:

In those scientific disciplines where evolution is most relevant, it is an article of faith considerably out of proportion to the actual evidence and many problems.

Click to expand...

Are you aware of the galactic amount of the aforementioned evidence that leads to the theory? Over umpteen different disciplines? One would need a few lifetimes of study just to be able to get a basic understanding of it.

HBP said:

I would say it's more "doubt about evolution" than "rabid creationism." I find that large numbers of Christians, like me, sense that current evolutionary theory is missing some critical explanatory link.

Click to expand...

Now that is something with which I agree. From a theological perspective. Because evolution leads one to think that we are just an accident of natural processes. Which is my position. Lucky us. But if God is responsible then, Him being omnipotent, He could design any process to have a desired outcome. He just, as it is said, lit the blue touch paper. That fails for me on any number of points, but unless one is a creationist, it's the only option for a Christian as I see it.

HBP said:

It's not that I find evolutionary theory threatening to my biblical worldview, because I really don't have a creationist biblical worldview. It's that I find it an inadequate explanation that seems increasingly outdated as other disciplines like cosmology and physics advance. The fact that the scientific community clings to it, kicking and screaming, seems like precisely what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Click to expand...

I see a lot of arguments in the scientific community about aspects of the process. You might want to describe it as 'kicking and screaming' if you like. Just like there is in cosmology. Or particle physics. But...so what? You expect arguments. You expect heated discussions. You expect differences of opinions. About details of said process. But nobody is arguing that it's wrong.

And can you be specific about what you see as being outdated? I take it that you mean that you feel that some of it is wrong. That new evidence renders some aspects of it redundant.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

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.

Click to expand...

I get that science is ongoing and technical, but if a claim is so complex it can’t be explained without 50 pages of jargon, then it’s not useful in a conversation like this. If you can’t summarize the core argument or evidence clearly, maybe it’s not as settled as you think. Also, the Bible isn’t “just a bunch of stories”, it makes testable claims about origins, morality, and truth. Science and Scripture both deserve serious thought, not dismissive comparisons.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then summarise the strongest evidence. If the mountain is so massive, surely you can point to a few key peaks. Asking me to dig through 50 pages isn't a demonstration of strength; it's a deflection. If the evolutionary model is so well-supported, it should be easy to communicate the core ideas plainly. That’s what we’re doing here: conversation, not academic citation dumps.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're simply restating naturalistic assumptions as if they're neutral conclusions. But every model is built on a framework. When you begin by excluding design as a possibility, you're not discovering evidence against it, you’re ruling it out by definition. That’s not objective science; it’s philosophical filtering. If only natural causes are allowed, of course you'll interpret the data as natural.

Fervent said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Irreducible complexity remains a valid challenge because proposed models often rely on the assumption that all parts evolved gradually and remained useful, without demonstrating how each step adds function. Repeating that macro is just micro over time doesn't address this, it’s a claim, not an explanation. The species continuum doesn’t explain the origin of entirely new systems or information. And calling my arguments misunderstandings doesn’t answer them, it just dismisses them. If the evidence is so strong, it shouldn’t need to rely on definitions or philosophical commitments.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

That cuts both ways as evolutionists do the same thing. You begin with the assumption that natural processes are the only valid explanation and interpret all evidence through that lens. That’s also starting with a conclusion, it's just a naturalistic one. I’m not ignoring evidence; I’m questioning the framework used to interpret it. Dismissing challenges to evolution by labelling them “fundamentalist” doesn’t answer them. If the theory truly stands on its own merits, it should withstand scrutiny from any worldview, not just those that already agree with it.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hope most atheists understand that not all theists are fundamentalist Christians. If they don't, that's a major oversight.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the extreme reactions from conservative Christians after Darwin published his work. There was a pretty immediate and strong backlash before atheists started exploiting it.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

In some cases, definitely. But just as not all Christians are fundamentalists, not all atheists are anti-religious crusaders.

Fervent said:

I make no objections to evolution, 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...

There are some in this thread in the latter group. But unless I've missed it, none in the former. I'd go as far as to say that anyone who classes themselves as an atheist in this thread would be quite happy to discuss evolution and accept 'for the purpose of the discussion that God exists'. And they'd do that because it would literally have no impact on the discussion. Which would, being a scientific discussion of a natural process, exclude any supernatural influences.

Fervent said:

In short, yes it's plausible. And for my part, I refer to it as pseudoscience because it is a conclusion looking for evidence rather than a procedural model. It's built on conceivability arguments like "irreducible complexity", not on recursive modeling. While the line between science and pseudoscience can at times be blurry, what(for me) makes science science is that it is thoroughly procedural, which ID is not.

It's just the opposite, understanding the appeal of ID makes its non-scientific character obvious. It's not about incrementally improving a model, but in asserting unasailable concepts. It relies on selective consideration of the evidence, and refusal to engage with the full scope of the current state of empirical science. It's not a matter of intelligence, or lack thereof, but motives and procedures.

Click to expand...

You think it's not science and in fact that this is obvious. John Lennox thinks it is. Hmmm. It almost sounds as though you don't think abductive reasoning is scientific. Surely that's not true? I don't see ID as anything but a body of evidence and plausible conjecture for which the best explanation may (or may not) be a designer of some sort. Coupled with the evidence and plausible conjecture from several scientific disciplines that calls into question the naturalistic paradigm, I fail to see how ID can be so easily dismissed as unworthy of attention. I am appealing to authority to some extent, but I have a hard time believing that scientists of the caliber I've mentioned would keep insisting ID is legitimate science just to prop up a creationist agenda.

Fervent said:

"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.

Click to expand...

You;ve very nicely presented a number of important points.
Irreducible complexity exists, but since we've observed the evolution of irreducibly complex systems, it's a moot point.

Fervent said:

Additionally, there is no true difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because biological flora an fauna appear to exist on a continuum.

Click to expand...

In the case of clines and ring species, microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution. Leopard frogs are a single species from northern U.S. to Southern U.S. Genes flow along the populations at different latitudes. But the frogs in the far north cannot interbreed with frogs from the far south, even as they both interbreed with intermediate populations. If those intermediate populations were to go extinct, it would be retroactively macroevolution.

As you say, the boundary between species is often very hard to define. If creationism were true, this would not be so; we'd have nice, clear boundaries between taxa. But we don't. As Darwin pointed out, there are all sort of intermediate cases.

Hans Blaster said:

I specifically meant in your interactions with me.

Click to expand...

You jumped on me midstream about a conversation I was having about what I saw as atheist hyperbole declaring unequivocally there was "no" evidence for the supernatural. It had nothing to do with evolution, directly.

Hans Blaster said:

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

Click to expand...

Metaphysics tends to be what is the real issue between atheists and believers. Your refusal to make critical assessment of yours by disdaining the field is no skin off my neck.

Hans Blaster said:

Well that's good.

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

Click to expand...

I'm well aware, but there is a difference between silence on the matter, and a denial. Science, properly speaking, is neutral to the question of God's existence(or non-existence) and we must turn to other avenues if we aim to addresss the question.

Hans Blaster said:

Sigh.

On this I would agree.

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.

Click to expand...

Ok

Hans Blaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, I might be a bit touchy on the subject because accepting evolution was a struggle for me due to the popular presentatation that I had to choose my loyalty. It wasn't until I read the Selfish Gene that I realized there was nothing in the theory of evolution that necessitated abandoning my faith, as it is a(well founded) conjectural model. My part in the debate is not to deal with the science, but to challenge the metaphysical baggage that is sold alongside it.

Hans Blaster said:

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

Click to expand...

It was a major issue, and he popularized the idea that the two were incompatible(along with the fundamentalists he chose to interact with)

Hans Blaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

More in the popular sciences than in practicing sciences, as science popularizers tend to promote disbelief as part of the package(Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking)...within the disciplines themselves there tend to be a mix and it doesn't matter so long as their science is good, but in popular spaces there is a distinct narrative that faith and science are incompatible.

HBP said:

Philosophical materialism, as opposed to methodological materialism, is indeed an atheistic commitment that is indistinguishable from a religion: there is no spiritual dimension, period. Any scientist would agree with this - it isn't me calling anyone names. Philosophical materialism is prevalent in modern science. A designer or creator is simply ruled out - off the table. If this isn't the functional equivalent of a religion, I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

Now if you had said 'a secular commitment' then I would have agreed with you. The difference between an atheistic viewpoint and a secular one is that the latter can be held by Christians. A Christian scientist doesn't include God in dealing with questions of evolutionary process because it's a secular process. If he or she included God then it would be a theological process.

HBP said:

I think it's been pretty well exposed by the reaction of the scientific community to the Intelligent Design movement that the proponents of neo-Darwinism do have a philosophical commitment to the theory. The same has been exposed by the difficulty of purely secular scientists who question the theory in presenting their concerns.

Click to expand...

If they have concerns then they need to present the evidence. Best evidence wins.

HBP said:

Apart from those - and they are many - who have a philosophical commitment to it, I don't say that neo-Darwinism is a myth or religion. For thos who have a philosophical commitment to it, it functions as a religion. In the abstract, neo-Darwinism is simply a scientific theory and the currently governing paradigm. It is increasingly being exposed as flawed and untenable...

Click to expand...

There are flaws in any theory, especially one as complex and varied as the evolutionary process. As I said, it covers a vast array of subjects with a gargantuan amount of detail. I'd be astonished if there wasn't some disagreement somewhere.

HBP said:

The truth, for all I know, may be some variety of evolution not too dissimilar from neo-Darwinian theory together with a creator God.

Click to expand...

Who said that you needed to exclude Him? You're a Christian. You cannot exclude Him.

Bradskii said:

There are some in this thread in the latter group. But unless I've missed it, none in the former. I'd go as far as to say that anyone who classes themselves as an atheist in this thread would be quite happy to discuss evolution and accept 'for the purpose of the discussion that God exists'. And they'd do that because it would literally have no impact on the discussion. Which would, being a scientific discussion of a natural process, exclude any supernatural influences.

Click to expand...

If we limited ourselves to the discussion of evolution, sure. It's not a relevant question to science. But where it becomes a matter of polemics is when scientific sileence on supernatural influences is taken as proof positive of their non-existence. Science is a limited discipline without the tools to address questions of supernatural entities, but atheist polemicists routinely cite a supposed lack of evidence and simultaneously restrict what evidence they will consider to a field that simply doesn't consider the question. In effect, this leads to an impression that science supports atheist disbelief when it simply doesn't consider the question.

HBP said:

You think it's not science and in fact that this is obvious. John Lennox thinks it is. Hmmm. It almost sounds as though you don't think abductive reasoning is scientific. Surely that's not true? I don't see ID as anything but a body of evidence and plausible conjecture for which the best explanation may (or may not) be a designer of some sort. Coupled with the evidence and plausible conjecture from several scientific disciplines that calls into question the naturalistic paradigm, I fail to see how ID can be so easily dismissed as unworthy of attention. I am appealing to authority to some extent, but I have a hard time believing that scientists of the caliber I've mentioned would keep insisting ID is legitimate science just to prop up a creationist agenda.

Click to expand...

While there is room for disagreement, my qualification of ID as pseudoscience is not simply a matter of my opinion but a basic issue that separates the two and can be readily identified. ID is not procedural, it doesn't make testable predictions such that it can be modified. It relies on conceptualization and a priori categories that don't reflect the reality of biological life. Irreducible complexity, such that it produces an absolute threshold of what evolution can produce, is simply not reflective of the data we have. ID isn't proper science because it begins with a conclusion that offers no testable predictions, and what objections it raises have been thoroughly debunked.

River Jordan said:

I hope most atheists understand that not all theists are fundamentalist Christians. If they don't, that's a major oversight.

Click to expand...

Fair enough

River Jordan said:

Don't underestimate the extreme reactions from conservative Christians after Darwin published his work. There was a pretty immediate and strong backlash before atheists started exploiting it.

Click to expand...

There was backlash, as there is anytime there is a paradigm shift(100 scientists against Einstein comes to mind). But that backlash was more because it challenged the status quo, and outside of a group of reactionaries mainline believers were able to accomodate the challenges. Fundamentalism was more of a reactionary movement than drawing from historic Christian beliefs about origins. Heck, as far back as Augustine theologians doubted the literal nature of Genesis and other OT books.

River Jordan said:

In some cases, definitely. But just as not all Christians are fundamentalists, not all atheists are anti-religious crusaders.

Click to expand...

Yeah, of course. But the greasy wheel gets the grease, and the anti-religious crusaders tend to be the most vocal in the "debate". And when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, it becomes a matter of deny, deny, deny. What metaphysics? "I prefer my physics without meta" and similar statements that give the appearance that there is a direct link between a methodology and a metaphysical worldview.

1Tonne said:

I get that science is ongoing and technical, but if a claim is so complex it can’t be explained without 50 pages of jargon, then it’s not useful in a conversation like this.

Click to expand...

There's no royal road to biology, either. If you can't take the time to learn the facts, it will always be a mystery to you.

1Tonne said:

Science and Scripture both deserve serious thought, not dismissive comparisons.

Click to expand...

Only when people start confusing religious doctrines and scientific theories, do we see problems.

1Tonne said:

Then summarise the strongest evidence. If the mountain is so massive, surely you can point to a few key peaks.

Click to expand...

Sure.

1. We observe evolution acting on all populations, and numerous examples of macroevolution. And there is no demonstrated boundary at any level of taxa, preventing further evolution.

2. The fossil record, with it's very large number of transitional series is very good evidence for evolutionary theory. And these cross all levels of taxa.

3. Genetic analyses show the same phylogenies worked out earlier on anatomical data. And we can test this by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.

4. A very large number of predictions, based on evolutionary theory have subsequently been confirmed by evidence. (would you like to see some of them?)

Those are few that come to mind. There are others, if you'd like to see them.

1Tonne said:

You're simply restating naturalistic assumptions as if they're neutral conclusions. But every model is built on a framework. When you begin by excluding design as a possibility, you're not discovering evidence against it, you’re ruling it out by definition.

Click to expand...

You're simply restating design assumptions as if they're neutral conclusions. But so far, no trace of actual design. If you want to argue that creating a world in which nature produces the variety of life we see, amounts to design, perhaps you have an argument. But creation is a stronger thing than design, and more Godlike and efficient. Which is why engineers have started using evolutionary processes for very complex problems. Seems to me, to be disrespectful of the Creator to demote Him to a mere designer.

1Tonne said:

Irreducible complexity remains a valid challenge because proposed models often rely on the assumption that all parts evolved gradually and remained useful, without demonstrating how each step adds function.

Click to expand...

The fact of observed evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system pretty much ends that argument. Reality beats anyone's argument.

1Tonne said:

The species continuum doesn’t explain the origin of entirely new systems or information.

Click to expand...

I showed you in detail, with the math for a simple case, now new information evolves in a population. What don't you understand about it?

1Tonne said:

You begin with the assumption that natural processes are the only valid explanation and interpret all evidence through that lens.

Click to expand...

Comes down to evidence. Can you show us even one natural phenomenon that can be explained by divine intervention? If so, now would be a good time to bring it out and show us the evidence.

1Tonne said:

Dismissing challenges to evolution by labelling them “fundamentalist” doesn’t answer them.

Click to expand...

I prefer to use evidence. Would you like to see some more?

Hans Blaster said:

I had no idea Huxley was an atheist.

Click to expand...

He described himself as an agnostic. I believe he coined the term.

The Barbarian said:

You;ve very nicely presented a number of important points.
Irreducible complexity exists, but since we've observed the evolution of irreducibly complex systems, it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

There are systems that won't function if a part is removed, so yeah it exists in that sense. But the ID sense of irreducible complexity doesn't exist, because there are no systems which cannot be explained on the basis of previous instantations of biological systems. So it depends on how we understand that phrase, as IDers tend to see it as an absolute barrier despite there being explanatory models and observed evidence.

The Barbarian said:

In the case of clines and ring species, microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution. Leopard frogs are a single species from northern U.S. to Southern U.S. Genes flow along the populations at different latitudes. But the frogs in the far north cannot interbreed with frogs from the far south, even as they both interbreed with intermediate populations. If those intermediate populations were to go extinct, it would be retroactively macroevolution.

Click to expand...

Yes, these terms hold some meaning but the issue is conceptual. Macroevolution and microevolution aren't different processes, simply expressions of the underlying processes.

The Barbarian said:

As you say, the boundary between species is often very hard to define. If creationism were true, this would not be so; we'd have nice, clear boundaries between taxa. But we don't. As Darwin pointed out, there are all sort of intermediate cases.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the whole idea of "intermediates" is itself a flawed concept, as all life is a continuum and functional labels like "species" and "genus" are just convenient ways to categorize groups that have similar features. It's the heap of sand paradox, if you take a grain of sand away from a heap it remains a heap. But eventually you take enough grains away and it no longer qualifies, but the boundary isn't exactly clear.

Fervent said:

There was backlash, as there is anytime there is a paradigm shift(100 scientists against Einstein comes to mind). But that backlash was more because it challenged the status quo, and outside of a group of reactionaries mainline believers were able to accomodate the challenges. Fundamentalism was more of a reactionary movement than drawing from historic Christian beliefs about origins. Heck, as far back as Augustine theologians doubted the literal nature of Genesis and other OT books.

Click to expand...

I'm directly referring to the backlash to Darwin's work from Protestant Christians. It was significant and preceded attempts by atheists to use evolution as an anti-religion weapon.

Fervent said:

Yeah, of course. But the greasy wheel gets the grease, and the anti-religious crusaders tend to be the most vocal in the "debate". And when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, it becomes a matter of deny, deny, deny. What metaphysics? "I prefer my physics without meta" and similar statements that give the appearance that there is a direct link between a methodology and a metaphysical worldview.

Click to expand...

I'll have to keep my eyes open for that. I haven't really seen it here but that could be because I'm not here all that much.

River Jordan said:

I'm directly referring to the backlash to Darwin's work from Protestant Christians. It was significant and preceded attempts by atheists to use evolution as an anti-religion weapon.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware. There was backlash that congealed into fundamentalism, but that was at least partly because humans by and large don't like paradigm shifts and protestant Christianity at that time was the dominant cultural position. I'm not saying there weren't Christians complicit in setting the stage for it being evolution vs God, simply that the fires have been stoked by atheist polemicists who conflated promotion of science with religious skepticism.

River Jordan said:

I'll have to keep my eyes open for that. I haven't really seen it here but that could be because I'm not here all that much.

Click to expand...

It's more than just on these forums, there tends to be a general disdain towards acknowledging that metaphysics is unavoidable in our understanding of reality which is exacerbated by a lack of clear definitions of "physical" or "natural" and a conflation of "natural" with notions of an atheistic cosmos. It tends to be subtle, but to someone who has made a criticial assessment of the types of ontological, mereological, and epistemic issues that are at play and found them wanting it can be quite frustrating when atheists try to smuggle their positions into the default and accuse those who question such things of malfeasance for wanting to discuss the issues on more neutral terms.

The Barbarian said:

He described himself as an agnostic. I believe he coined the term.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, that's right. (I hate that guy. What a stupid label.)