Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Fervent said:

When dealing with history, it is always a matter of probability rather than certainty.
Proof is only possible in mathematics.

Click to expand...

When you refer to something as a fact, you imply that it can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt, at least).

Fervent said:

Citations needed. What stories, exactly? And what evidence is there that these stories predate the story of Jesus?

Click to expand...

I find it difficult to believe that you haven't hears of Osiris, and read about the resemblance.

NxNW said:

When you refer to something as a fact, you imply that it can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt, at least).

Click to expand...

Facticity and evidentiary thresholds vary by field, by historical standards the three "facts" I start with are not controversial in any way. As for "reasonable doubt", that's in the eye of the beholder and not an objective standard. And I don't recall boasting of being able to prove anything, other than that your claims of there being "no" evidence are inaccurate and that there is a circumstantial case to be made for the resurrection. So please do not put words in my mouth that promise more than I have actually stated.

NxNW said:

I find it difficult to believe that you haven't hears of Osiris, and read about the resemblance.

Click to expand...

What parallels do you believe there are between Osiris and Jesus? I've heard the claims, but none of what is said tends to line up and tends to be exagerated or misrepresented(for example, the claim that Osiris was born of a virgin when he was created from his father's genitalia) So what parallels do you mean exactly, and what documents are you referring to where such parallels are seen?

1Tonne said:

Regarding evolution:
We’re all looking at the same evidence, the same fossils, the same genetic data, the same observable world. But we interpret that evidence through different lenses. The atheist or evolutionist sees fossils with similarities and concludes they must be related through common ancestry.

Click to expand...

No, the scientist makes testable predictions, and when they are successful, concludes the hypothesis is at least provisionally accurate.

1Tonne said:

The issue isn’t the presence of similarities; it’s the assumption that similarity equals ancestry. That’s an interpretation, not a fact.

Click to expand...

It's a conclusion based on successful predictions.

1Tonne said:

And it ignores that many systems in biology, like the circulatory system, the bacterial flagellum, or the eye, don’t work if built in parts. They need to be fully formed to function at all.

Click to expand...

No, they don't. A partially functioning eye is better than no eye at all.

1Tonne said:

The Creationist Thought Pattern:
“Wow, look at the breathtaking variety of fossils! Each creature fits clearly within its own kind, dogs are dogs, cats are cats, birds are birds, with no blending between them. The design, order, and purpose in each one points unmistakably to a Creator.”

Click to expand...

Note that there are no testable predictions made.

1Tonne said:

The Evolutionist Thought Pattern:
“There are similarities among fossils. Therefore, I’ll presuppose all life shares a common ancestor. Yes, most transitional forms are missing, but I’m confident they existed once upon a time, we just haven’t found them yet. Given enough time, unguided processes can build anything."
(But 150 years later, and they are still waiting. Darwin would have conceded by now. LOL)

Click to expand...

Absolutely false. There are no presuppositions and no such assumptions. As stated earlier, the scientist makes testable predictions, and when they are successful, concludes the hypothesis is at least provisionally accurate.

1Tonne said:

If you’re claiming there are many examples that refute irreducible complexity, then name one, and explain how its parts could evolve step-by-step, with each stage being functional and advantageous. Simply asserting it’s been refuted isn’t the same as demonstrating it. Be specific, not dismissive. (Don't just give me a paper to read)

Click to expand...

You may be too young to remember Dover vs Kitzmiller, but that argument was made 20 years ago and lost in court due to expert testimony explaining how systems like the bacterial flagellum could have evolved through modifications of simpler, pre-existing systems

1Tonne said:

I do not believe that, and I would not be silly enough to make such a claim.

Click to expand...

You're the one making Intelligent Design arguments. ID stipulates, per Michael Behe's sworn testimony in court, that we are all descended from a common ancestor.

Hans Blaster said:

I haven't "researched" it, per se, in the way NxNW seems to imply, and with one minor exception (that I find the existence evidence a little more plausible than non-existence) it applies to me as well as I am unconvinced that Jesus was an actual person. I would not consider myself a "mythicist" since I have not taken the position that "Jesus was a myth".

Click to expand...

The same applies to me. I do not assert that Jesus never existed, but I am unconvinced by the arguments I've seen thus far.

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...

For the most part "atheistic" scientists just have no quarrel with such groups, because the people composing them have no quarrel with the science and don't attribute moral turpitude to evolutionary biologists. Back in the dawn of time when Noah and I were undergraduate the head of our biology department was a Roman Catholic brother in orders. He was also at the time considered a leading expert in the evolution of bats and his work was widely regarded, but his religion was ignored. Many of the people in BioLogos do good work too, and are recognized for it, but their theological speculations are rightly ignored, as not part of the science.

BCP1928 said:

For the most part "atheistic" scientists just have no quarrel with such groups, because the people composing them have no quarrel with the science and don't attribute moral turpitude to evolutionary biologists. Back in the dawn of time when Noah and I were undergraduate the head of our biology department was a Roman Catholic brother in orders. He was also at the time considered a leading expert in the evolution of bats and his work was widely regarded, but his religion was ignored. Many of the people in BioLogos do good work too, and are recognized for it, but their theological speculations are rightly ignored, as not part of the science.

Click to expand...

My concern isn't with the academy of sciences, it's more the popularizers and classroom teachers that I am concerned about. I'm not sure if it's just my eperience, but in my college experience I encountered quite a bit of unprompted antagonism towards religious belief from several instructors. Surprisingly, the two who stand out as the most amicable(or at least the ones who weren't vocally opposed) were a biology professor and a physics professor. So it's more at the popular level than the professional level where my concern rests, where I can't think of a single science popularizer who didn't in some form or fashion connect their zeal for science with adopting an attitude of religious skepticism.

Fervent said:

My concern isn't with the academy of sciences, it's more the popularizers and classroom teachers that I am concerned about. I'm not sure if it's just my eperience, but in my college experience I encountered quite a bit of unprompted antagonism towards religious belief from several instructors. Surprisingly, the two who stand out as the most amicable(or at least the ones who weren't vocally opposed) were a biology professor and a physics professor. So it's more at the popular level than the professional level where my concern rests, where I can't think of a single science popularizer who didn't in some form or fashion connect their zeal for science with adopting an attitude of religious skepticism.

Click to expand...

So your concern is that atheistic science popularizers are spreading the incorrect idea that the theory of evolution is atheistic. And, of course, the creationists are spreading that idea as well, including in their definition of atheism all other Christians for rejecting Biblical creationism. That;s why the battle lines in this forum are drawn with Biblical creationists on one side and everybody else--atheists, Christians, and a wide variety of other theists--on the other.

BCP1928 said:

So your concern is that atheistic science popularizers are spreading the incorrect idea that the theory of evolution is atheistic. And, of course, the creationists are spreading that idea as well, including in their definition of atheism all other Christians for rejecting Biblical creationism. That;s why the battle lines in this forum are drawn with Biblical creationists on one side and everybody else--atheists, Christians, and a wide variety of other theists--on the other.

Click to expand...

I don't think the battle lines are quite that neat, while there are overlapping concerns it is clear to me that for at least some of the atheists there is no tolerance for even the suggestion that the process is not a result of happenstance irrational forces, but that discussion is metaphysical rather than scientific. The core issue, for me, is that the battle tends to be more ideological despite being ostensibly about the evidence. But yes, my concern is that there is a subtle influence of atheistic viewpoints on the discussion because there is a confusion between scientific neutrality on the supernatural because it is outside the purview of science and skepticism towards the supernatural(I really hate that term, because it is so poorly defined)

River Jordan said:

As a working scientist myself

Click to expand...

The old "I am a scientist, and so you should listen to me" argument again.

The Barbarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

I’m not asking for a “royal road,” just clarity. If you make a claim, then you should be able to explain the core of it without burying it in technical layers. That’s not anti-science; it’s just asking for clear communication. I’m open to learning, but expecting people to sift through 50 dense pages without a summary isn’t conversation, it’s deflection. So, stop deflecting as you have so many times. If you genuinely want others to understand, you should be willing to distill your point.

The Barbarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks for summarising. But I’d suggest each of those points assumes naturalism from the start, not neutral:
1. Observed adaptation doesn’t prove limitless change; no mechanism has shown a step-by-step pathway for new organs or body plans.
2. The fossil record still shows gaps, not gradual transitions, and interpretation assumes common ancestry.
3. Genetic similarities can also point to common design, not just descent.
4. Confirmed predictions only carry weight if they’re unique to evolution and not explainable by other models.

The Barbarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're right that both of us are working from frameworks; we all interpret evidence through a lens (I am willing to admit that). But it's misleading to say there's “no trace of design” when the very patterns we study, functional complexity, fine-tuned systems, and encoded information mirror what we know design produces. If engineers use evolution, it's because they guide it with goals. Unguided processes don’t plan or innovate; they adapt. So, I’m not demoting the Creator to a mere designer; I’m pointing out that design is a more plausible explanation than chance.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the “one bacteria evolved one enzyme under lab conditions” example. Surely that settles the entire question of how entire interdependent systems with dozens of parts evolved step by step in the wild, right? If only Darwin had waited for that Petri dish. You say, “reality beats anyone’s argument,” but all I see is an assumption doing laps around a microscope. Let’s see the actual mechanism, not just a conclusion wrapped in confidence.

The Barbarian said:

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?

Click to expand...

You didn’t show how new information arises from nothing. You showed how existing genes mutate, regulate, or duplicate, which is just reshuffling or degrading what’s already there. That’s not the same as building a new, integrated biological system from scratch. Claiming the math proves it doesn’t help if it rests on the assumption that all change equals innovation. Show specific examples of functional, novel systems arising step-by-step, not just adaptive tweaks or minor shifts. That’s the level of evidence the claim demands. You have not proven that. You have only presumed it.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

You keep saying “evidence” like it’s some magic word that ends the conversation. But what you keep presenting isn’t neutral data, it’s data interpreted through your naturalistic assumptions. Then, when challenged, you deflect by offering more papers, more jargon, and more condescension. If the evidence were so clear, you should be able to summarise it coherently and show how it logically overcomes specific objections, like irreducible complexity, not just assume it does. Until then, repeating “would you like to see more?” just proves you have quantity, not clarity.

Fervent said:

I don't think the battle lines are quite that neat, while there are overlapping concerns it is clear to me that for at least some of the atheists there is no tolerance for even the suggestion that the process is not a result of happenstance irrational forces,

Click to expand...

That is another factor, the deliberate misrepresentation of the science--"happenstance irrational forces".being a typical example.

Fervent said:

but that discussion is metaphysical rather than scientific. The core issue, for me, is that the battle tends to be more ideological despite being ostensibly about the evidence. But yes, my concern is that there is a subtle influence of atheistic viewpoints on the discussion because there is a confusion between scientific neutrality on the supernatural because it is outside the purview of science and skepticism towards the supernatural(I really hate that term, because it is so poorly defined)

Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you are getting at, I was fortunate in being fairly well schooled in my faith before I was introduced to biological evolution in any serious way, so the problem never arose for me. I really don't care about what Dawkins has to say on the subject.

BCP1928 said:

That is another factor, the deliberate misrepresentation of the science--"happenstance irrational forces".being a typical example.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly how to put that because the idea of chance doesn't really make sense when we're talking about such things, but without a deliberate Creator I fail to see how we can ascribe it to anything else.

BCP1928 said:

Yes, I see what you are getting at, I was fortunate in being fairly well schooled in my faith before I was introduced to biological evolution in any serious way, so the problem never arose for me. I really don't care about what Dawkins has to say on the subject.

Click to expand...

For me, I always struggled with the ideas because I was convinced that I had to choose on some level. I nearly abandoned my faith, but no one could answer my one question I had whenever someone would propose that we shouldn't accept things on faith. Why not? Ironically, what broke the whole thing open for me was The Selfish Gene where I saw the man behnd the curtain as the whole thing struck me as extremely conjectural. As I have deepened my faith and my belief in the Bible, I have grown more and more comfortable accepting without imposition that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, but I wouldn't consider myself aligned with atheists simply because I agree with them on one issue. There are simply too many epistemic, moral, and ontological issues in the mix and my primary loyalty is to Christ and not to any subordinate thing like science.

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

But as you say...

Fervent said:

Science is a limited discipline without the tools to address questions of supernatural entities...

Click to expand...

So it doesn't address the supernatural. Unless there's some evidence there to actually address. In which case it becomes something natural to explain. As you have so rightly pointed out more than once, some in this thread have started with the answer and then gone looking for questions that they think will lead to it.

Fervent said:

...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.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you can say that they restrict what evidence they will consider. As you said above, science has tools it can use. But the evidence must be available in a manner by which those tools can be used.

Fervent said:

In effect, this leads to an impression that science supports atheist disbelief when it simply doesn't consider the question.

Click to expand...

Exactly right.

Bradskii said:

But as you say...

So it doesn't address the supernatural. Unless there's some evidence there to actually address. In which case it becomes something natural to explain. As you have so rightly pointed out more than once, some in this thread have started with the answer and then gone looking for questions that they think will lead to it.

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

I don't think that you can say that they restrict what evidence they will consider. As you said above, science has tools it can use. But the evidence must be available in a manner by which those tools can be used.

Exactly right.

Click to expand...

Thanks for being case-in-point.

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...

If someone comes up with a better naturalistic explanation of the available evidence and it has better predictive power, then the Theory of Evolution could be overturned. I don't think it will, but it's still a possibility. After all, the structure of evolutionary theory has gone through several major modifications since the 1850s.

Of course, what replaces it will still be a naturalistic explanation, as science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism. Why? Because it has no ability to detect, examine, demonstrate, test or replicate causes/effects that are outside of nature. And, if it did include things that were other than natural, then this would invalidate all findings. Because there could be no guarantee that any observation or result wasn't being interfered with somehow.

Philosophical materialism is - as the name suggests - a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. As such, it has zero bearing on the conduct of science. But not of scientists. A scientist does not have to be a philosophical materialist.


What's interesting here is that you've indirectly admitted that creationism and ID are not science. Under the necessary scientific precondition of methodological naturalism, they both fail as models. Neither is testable, neither is falsifiable and neither make novel and useful predictions (ID's 'predictions' are actually post-dictions).

Gene2memE said:

Of course, what replaces it will still be a naturalistic explanation, as science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism.

Click to expand...

To add to this, the "naturalism" here doesn't refer to ontology but to a series of epistemic commitments. Mostly, it's about a commitment to an a posteriori approach to information rather than dealing in an a priori approach. The strength of it is that it relies on iteritive procedures, making it neutral to metaphysical understandings. Which is where the rub is, because "naturalism" tends to be understood ontologically rather than epistemically since it appears to be a statement about the kinds of things that exist.

1Tonne said:

I’m not asking for a “royal road,” just clarity. If you make a claim, then you should be able to explain the core of it without burying it in technical layers.

Click to expand...

For example, you made a claim about information in biological systems. I showed you a very simple way that it works. You ignored it, apparently, as "technical layers." If you can't even grasp how information works, how can you hope to discuss it?

1Tonne said:

Thanks for summarising. But I’d suggest each of those points assumes naturalism from the start, not neutral:

Click to expand...

If you think so, it's rather hard to explain how honest and knowledgeable creationists call it solid evidence for evolution.

1Tonne said:

1. Observed adaptation doesn’t prove limitless change;

Click to expand...

Darwin himself showed that evolution was not limitless. Again, you'd be more effective arguing against biology if you understood it.

1Tonne said:

no mechanism has shown a step-by-step pathway for new organs or body plans.

Click to expand...

No, that's wrong, too. For example, tetrapod legs show a step-by-step sequence that YEC Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

1Tonne said:

2. The fossil record still shows gaps, not gradual transitions, and interpretation assumes common ancestry.

Click to expand...

Not according to Dr. Wise. He cites many such examples of gradual transitional series, including:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates— has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.3

Dr. Wise doesn't believe that they did evolve this way; he's merely too honest to deny that the evidence indicates that they did. And he assumes that there was no common ancestry. Most of his fellow YECs lack the knowledge or honesty to admit the fact.

1Tonne said:

3. Genetic similarities can also point to common design, not just descent.

Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. You have confused homology with analogy. Whales, bats and tigers are closer genetically than fish, birds and alligators. And we can test the idea by looking at organisms of known descent. It always works.

1Tonne said:

4. Confirmed predictions only carry weight if they’re unique to evolution and not explainable by other models.

Click to expand...

That's wrong, too. Dr. Wise, again:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

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:

But it's misleading to say there's “no trace of design” when the very patterns we study, functional complexity, fine-tuned systems, and encoded information mirror what we know design produces.

Click to expand...

We notice that evolutionary processes are more efficient at very complex problems than is design. God knew best, after all.

1Tonne said:

If engineers use evolution, it's because they guide it with goals.

Click to expand...

Natural selection, as Darwin put it. They made survival dependent on some sort of goal like efficient combustion in an engine. They didn't specify anything. They merely allowed an initial state to randomly vary, after which only those variations showing improvement survived to mutate in the next generation. And it works very well. Wouldn't you expect God to do things well?

1Tonne said:

So, I’m not demoting the Creator to a mere designer

Click to expand...

I see the denial, but that's what you're doing.

1Tonne said:

; I’m pointing out that design is a more plausible explanation than chance.

Click to expand...

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. God knows best.
The fact of observed evolution of an irreducibly complex enzyme system pretty much ends that argument. Reality beats anyone's argument.

1Tonne said:

Ah, yes, the “one bacteria evolved one enzyme under lab conditions” example.

Click to expand...

Actually a series of enzymes, and then a regulator, which made the system irreducibly complex. Hall didn't specify any of that. He merely observed the culture evolve over time. Precisely what YECs claim could not happen.

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 didn’t show how new information arises from nothing.

Click to expand...

As you learned, it evolves from mutation. Every new mutation, as you saw, increases information in a population. Evolution always proceeds by modifying things. You've assumed another creationist belief that's not part of the real world. I'm thinking the actual math involved in the way a population gains new information is a problem for you. Perhaps we should start there.

1Tonne said:

That’s not the same as building a new, integrated biological system from scratch.

Click to expand...

As I said, you're still stuck in that misconception. Evolution proceeds by modifying things, not by producing something from nothing.

1Tonne said:

Claiming the math proves it doesn’t help if it rests on the assumption that all change equals innovation.

Click to expand...

All new mutations are innovations. Not all innovation is good; you're confusing innovation with improvement. Natural selection sorts that out. Would you like to learn of some simple examples?

1Tonne said:

Show specific examples of functional, novel systems arising step-by-step, not just adaptive tweaks or minor shifts.

Click to expand...

How about the mammalian jaw and middle ear. Would you like to see some step by step evidence mentioned by YEC Dr. Wise?


Gradual movement of lower jaw joint bones to the middle ear. At one point, (Diarthrognathus) Both mamamlian and reptilian jaw joints exist int he same animal. Can't get more gradual than that.

1Tonne said:

You keep saying “evidence” like it’s some magic word that ends the conversation.

Click to expand...

Some YECs react to evidence the way a vampire reacts to a crucifix. I get it; evidence is the enemy for those with presuppositions like YEC. But that's how science works.

1Tonne said:

If the evidence were so clear, you should be able to summarise it coherently

Click to expand...

Which I did. Your hand-waving is ineffective in dealing with it.

1Tonne said:

show how it logically overcomes specific objections, like irreducible complexity,

Click to expand...

I showed you an example of irreducible complexity evolving. If you deny this, show us how the newly-evolved system does not meet Behe's definition. That's not a rhetorical question; I want to see what you have, besides unsupported denial.

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."

Click to expand...

More than a quarter century of familiarity with ID, its claims, it proponents. It isn't science, it never was, and it was fairly obvious from the start that it wasn't. What wears the garb of science, but is not science is a pseudoscience.

As for the being "closet creationists", while it seemed likely at first, it was laid bare when the DI "wedge document" came to light. ID was nothing more than another attempt to get creationism into schools by masking the "creator" as "designer" to substitute in the old "creation science" (itself a dressing up of straight up creationism in scientific garb) that had been banned by federal courts from science classrooms as religion not science.

HBP said:

Do folks really think that men and women of the caliber of John Lennox, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer,

Click to expand...

A mathematician, another mathematician, and a historian -- not scientists.

HBP said:

Douglas Axe and many others with impeccable academic and scientific credentials -

Click to expand...

An actual molecular biologist. I can't assess his scientific record, but he has run a Potemkin-research institute to demonstrate ID with no results and virtually no publications.

HBP said:

indeed, Nobel laureates like Charles Townes (laureate in physics), Brian Josephson (ditto) and Gerhard Ertl (chemistry)

Click to expand...

None of who are biologists, or even within their own areas work(ed) on other things often labeled as "designed".

HBP said:

- 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 it is. (Josephson also fell for a bunch of other pseudosciences and suffered from the "Nobel disease".)

HBP said:

Lennox, whose credentials are about as impeccable as they get, has written extensively on why ID is legitimate science.

Click to expand...

His credentials are in mathematics, not science, and it doesn't matter how much apologetics he writes.

HBP said:

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...

The problem is it doesn't actually explain anything. It's been examined and found wanting. "irriducible complexity" doesn't work out as so many of these "irriducably complex" systems can be reduced (so far), and at the bottom requires a designer that is not identified or demonstrated.

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.

Click to expand...

LOL.

HBP said:

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?

Click to expand...

I have a Ph.D. in physics from a large American public university and a couple decades of professional research experience in my sub-field. For identification purposes (or rather counter-identification) this is all I will specify. I am not a biologist, but Lennox is not even a scientist.

HBP said:

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...

I've never been affiliated with a cow-crossing university, which is probably a mark in my favor.

HBP said:

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

Click to expand...

The first was obvious, the rest is good to know. Cheers.

The Barbarian said:

I showed you an example of irreducible complexity evolving. If you deny this, show us how the newly-evolved system does not meet Behe's definition. That's not a rhetorical question; I want to see what you have, besides unsupported denial.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out earlier, we're talking at cross purposes with him. Just look at what his concern is in what you replied to. It's not about empirical evidence, it's about logical demonstration. Creationists are almost invariably rationalists epistemically, convinced by conceivability arguments rather than empirical ones.

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...

Nor 'creationists'.

I didn't even meet a fundamentalist or a creationist until grad school (at least not that I knew of).

The Barbarian said:

For example, you made a claim about information in biological systems. I showed you a very simple way that it works. You ignored it, apparently, as "technical layers." If you can't even grasp how information works, how can you hope to discuss it?

Click to expand...

I did make a claim about irreducible complexity, and I asked for a clear, step-by-step explanation for how such systems could arise gradually, with each stage being both functional and advantageous.
The issue remains unresolved. I’ve asked for step-by-step, functional pathways to explain irreducible complexity, where each stage works and provides an advantage. What I’ve received instead are papers that assume such pathways exist but never demonstrate them. They describe systems after the fact or suggest hypothetical mechanisms (like co-option or duplication) without showing how each intermediate part actually functions on its own.
Until someone can show a real example, not just theory of a complex system like the flagellum or blood clotting, evolving step by step with working intermediates, irreducible complexity stands as a valid challenge.
If you can’t do this, then you have fail terribly with your evidence. So please do not say "I have shown you but you have ignored it" as I have read your papers and not ignored them. It is you who is not answering my question. I asked for a clear, step-by-step explanation for how such systems could arise gradually, with each stage being both functional and advantageous.

The Barbarian said:

If you think so, it's rather hard to explain how honest and knowledgeable creationists call it solid evidence for evolution.

Click to expand...

Both you and I know that you have a naturalist slant when it comes to science. You just do not want to admit it. Because if you do, then you are admitting that you are putting your slant on the results.

The Barbarian said:

Darwin himself showed that evolution was not limitless. Again, you'd be more effective arguing against biology if you understood it.

Click to expand...

Then we’re in agreement that evolution has limits. So, the real question is: where are those limits? And can step-by-step mutations, with each stage being functional and selected for, truly account for the origin of entirely new, interdependent biological systems like the circulatory system or flagellum?
That’s what I’ve been asking all along. Pointing to observed adaptation is not the same as explaining large-scale innovation. If you admit evolution isn’t limitless, then why assume it explains everything?

The Barbarian said:

No, that's wrong, too. For example, tetrapod legs show a step-by-step sequence that YEC Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Click to expand...

Quoting a single YEC scientist who finds one fossil series compelling doesn’t prove the case. The so-called tetrapod “sequence” still consists of fully formed organisms with distinct body structures, not actual transitional forms showing functional, incremental changes in limb development. A few fossils that seem to fit a narrative aren’t the same as a demonstrated mechanism.
Where is the actual step-by-step genetic pathway showing how random mutations built entirely new structures like limbs, with every stage being functional and selected for? That’s the issue. Storytelling with fossils isn’t the same as demonstrating how blind processes produce complex, interdependent systems. That’s what’s still missing.

To be honest, I’m getting bored of this conversation. I’ve asked for clear, direct evidence, and instead keep getting long papers, deflections, and assumptions treated as facts. If this is the best evolution has to offer, it’s no wonder so many people remain unconvinced.