Abandoning Darwinism: Three Scientists Discuss Why They Have

[SLP]

Did you listen to the video? If not you really can't comment on the knowledge or accuracy of these three scientists.

Does not follow - if we are familiar with their written commentary on the subject, why would listening to them say it out loud have a different impact?

Why not take one 'argument' from each of them and present it here in your own words so we can discuss it?

 

[SLP]

Would you care to comment on what the other two scientists said in this video?

Berlinski is not a scientist, and a computer scientist has no business discussing evolution unless he has experience in the field, which he does not.

Here is a bio of the computer guy:
http://www.yale64.org/news/lifestreams_bio.pdf

Show me what in there indicates that he has anything other than philosophical/social/religious objections to evolution.

 

[SLP]

(Meyer also gets referred to as "the biologist" of the discussion. However, he's not a biologist. You'd think the participants would know that.)

You would also think that, as a Christian, Meyer would not have wanted to be referred to in such a dishonest way.

 

[SLP]

LOL, these three scientists have very different reasoning and don't always agree with Meyer's. Meyer's and his reasoning is not the main focus of the discussion. He doesn't get any more time than the other scientists.

You keep saying "scientists."
Berlinski is, at best, a mathematician (though actual mathematicians think he sucks at math, too). The computer science guy is just a right-wing hack playing for some name recognition as far as I can tell.

If you are going to play appeal to (false) authority, I am going to argue against their supposed authority.

 

[SLP]

I already told you there a three different arguments and that I would probably make a mess out of them if I tried to explain...

If you cannot explain them, then it is likely that you didn't understand them.

 

[DaisyDay]

And what is your background such that your assessment of their banter has merit?
I have read many essays by Meyer and a few chapters of one of his books - I found his science dismal and his prose average. Berlinski is a buffoon who clearly has little knowledge of evolutionary biology. I saw a video of him giving his usual spiel followed by a Q&A - when asked a question regarding his evolution claims, he pulled a William F. Buckley - if you remember him, you may remember that when confronted with something he did not want to answer, he just vomited up a string of polysyllabic words to confuse people, topped it off with that condescending cockeyed grin of his, and never actually answered the question.
Imagine....

I do remember Buckley. Very erudite, but he would often argue in bad faith just to win a point. I found that disappointing.

 

[ruthiesea]

Does that mean that an intelligent scientist in another field needs to get another degree in order to understand the biology?

"Meyer graduated from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a degree in physics and earth science. He later became a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to 1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation. In 1986 as a Rotary International Scholar, he began his training in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, earning an M.Phil. in 1987 and a Ph.D. in 1991. His doctoral thesis was titled “Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research.”
.....
Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, presenting it as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the new forms of animal life that arose abruptly during the Cambrian explosion.

Because the article was the first peer-reviewed publication arguing for intelligent design in a technical journal, it proved extremely controversial."

Stephen C. Meyer

EDIT: Added quotation marks. Sorry, I usually italicize all quotes.

I went to the PBSW website and entered the name Meyer into the search engine and got no matching results.

 

[JackRT]

How much would you pay to listen in on a conversation among computer scientist David Gelernter, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician David Berlinski, hosted by Peter Robinson from Stanford’s Hoover Institution?

Not one who is in the life sciences???

 

[pitabread]

Anyone else watch the video yet?

 

[VirOptimus]

Anyone else watch the video yet?

No, that would be a colossal waste of time.

 

[keith99]

I note how none of them are biologists.

Actually based on their titles none of them are scientists. Computer science is not science and Math is definitely not science. For the record I took all the courses for a math major for the first 5 quarters and most of my professional life I was a programmer or 'computer scientist'.

I also note that there were no Chemists or Geologists. Both areas that touch on Evolution (Well at least for organic chemistry).

 

[Jimmy D]

I just watched the start .

The very first thing Gelernter says about the definition of “species” is overly simplistic and incorrect, he then wastes no time in changing the subject.

The theme of discussion is Gelernter’s essay which I would suggest reading to get understanding of his understanding of the subject.

Giving Up Darwin

It’s basically a rehash of a lot of “talking points” we see on this site daily... a mix of arguments from ignorance, apologetics, misrepresentations of well evidenced science and pointless post hoc calculations.

Here is an actual biologist pointing out a few of the many factual inaccuracies...

David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin - Quillette

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, I couldn’t help myself, I watched a bit more. Gelernter was moaning about free speech and the “violent”, “bitter”, “outraged” rejection of any criticism of Darwinism that apparently comes nowhere near intellectual scientific reasoning. Again, I guide you towards the criticism of his essay I posted.

To paraphrase Gelernter, he hasn’t actually faced this rabid criticism from his own colleagues, but the aggressive shutting down of free speech is rampant when Darwinists are defending their religion. Lol

 

[SLP]

Here is an actual biologist pointing out a few of the many factual inaccuracies...

David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin - Quillette

I did what one should never do - I started reading the comments there.
I am shocked that there are so many libertarian experts on evolutionary biology - the certainty with which they trivially dispense with evolution is astounding!
Coyne was also annoyed - he wrote a response on his blog in which he calls out some of the commenters on their BS.
More on my Quillette critique of David Gelernter

Regarding the very first reply to the Quillette article, he writes:

This is complete nonsense. “jdfree49” not only gives no reason why microevolution has to “back up” before making the big leap to macroevolution, like a person jumping a gap, but also apparently knows nothing about the evolution of legs, which appear to have evolved from strong bony fins of lobe-finned fish. Has this person ever heard of Tiktaalik? It is this kind of blather, spouted without any apparent knowledge of the data we have, that infuriates me.​

Berlinski looks like a tired old meth-head these days....

 

[xianghua]

"Intelligent Design" is far more "philosophy" than it is biology. It's a fun little mental exercise that is, ultimately, unfalsifiable.

as evolution. we cant realy falsify it. on the other hand we do have evidence for design, as you can see in my signature link.

 

[The_Barmecide]

as evolution. we cant realy falsify it. on the other hand we do have evidence for design, as you can see in my signature link.

you can falsify evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

as evolution. we cant realy falsify it. on the other hand we do have evidence for design, as you can see in my signature link.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it works, the ToE is very much falsfiable.

We have no data or evidence for ID.

 

[xianghua]

you can falsify evolution.

how? do you agree with dawkins that even a single out of place fossil will falsify evolution for instance?

 

[Jimmy D]

how? do you agree with dawkins that even a single out of place fossil will falsify evolution for instance?

Why not comment on the video instead of repeating the same thing again and again on any thread, regardless of the topic?

You’ve received an answer to that question many times, go and read those.

As well as exposing your intellectual dishonesty it’s very boring.

 

[Speedwell]

how? do you agree with dawkins that even a single out of place fossil will falsify evolution for instance?

For some definition of "out of place" fossil, yes. But most certainly not your contrived and sophistical definition of "out of place" fossil, as has been explained to you many times.