Abandoning Darwinism: Three Scientists Discuss Why They Have

[VirOptimus]

Yes, I do.
1. Darwinism has become so ingrained as a scientific fact that to think any other way brings condemnation and accusations of ignorance on anyone who dares to defy it.
2. ID even though it points out the weaknesses in Darwinism by the modern scientific knowledge of today it also points towards an intelligent designer/God/superior intelligence,...which is not allowed in the classroom today.

The way I see it, the science to explain the origins of life should be taught as - this is what we Know because of this.....and this is what we Don't Know because of this....

You think magic should be acceptable answers on science questions?

Thats really stupid.

 

[pitabread]

1. Darwinism has become so ingrained as a scientific fact that to think any other way brings condemnation and accusations of ignorance on anyone who dares to defy it.

What do you mean by "Darwinism"?

2. ID even though it points out the weaknesses in Darwinism by the modern scientific knowledge of today it also points towards an intelligent designer/God/superior intelligence,...which is not allowed in the classroom today.

Part of the issue is that ID is saddled with a lot of political baggage as a result of creationists using it to try to shoe-horn theology into science class. This is exactly what the Dover trial exposed.

As for ID as science, I've read a *lot* of ID literature. In my experience, the majority of ID literature is simply aimed at arguing against evolution and assuming design as the null hypothesis. However, design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

If ID advocates really want to make a scientific case for ID, they need to start working on coming up with positive evidence to support their claims. Which (imho) would primarily involve coming up with a plausible mechanism for design. They don't have that.

ID is nowhere near being considered legit science and this has nothing to do with anything to do with "Darwinism" or whatever other excuses people want to reach for. The failure of ID as science is solely its own.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, I do.
1. Darwinism has become so ingrained as a scientific fact that to think any other way brings condemnation and accusations of ignorance on anyone who dares to defy it.

That depends on how its defied. "Darwinism" (what an ignorant way to describe evolutionary theory) is constantly being challenged by scientists. That's how science works. If it is denied on the basis that it upsets someone's religious views then that's just too bad.

2. ID even though it points out the weaknesses in Darwinism by the modern scientific knowledge of today it also points towards an intelligent designer/God/superior intelligence,...which is not allowed in the classroom today.

ID is a hoax supported by pseudo-mathematical woo. It only points out the gullibility of it's supporters.

The way I see it, the science to explain the origins of life should be taught as - this is what we Know because of this.....and this is what we Don't Know because of this....

That's how science is actually taught in all well-conducted science classes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The way I see it, the science to explain the origins of life should be taught as - this is what we Know because of this.....and this is what we Don't Know because of this....

The origin of life is not part of Darwinism or any modern development of it. It's a separate subject.

But in any educational institution worthy of the name, that is how science should be taught - the evidence, the hypotheses that might plausibly explain it, the currently accepted theory, why it was preferred over the competing hypotheses, and how it was tested. That's how I was taught, anyhow. The idea is to both inform and teach you to think critically about the subject.

 

[Strathos]

What about a biochemist?
Do you think that experts in other fields don't have the intelligence to learn from those that are experts in the relevant fields and apply that knowledge in ways in their own field to convince themselves?

The problem is that some experts in certain fields look down on others and, without really learning about them, make assumptions that those fields are 'soft' or 'easy' and they can easily solve problems that have been issues among the relevant experts for a long time. Mathematicians have been known to do this to physicists, physicists to biologists, biologists to psychologists, etc.

 

[SLP]

This is a silly comment, do you need to be a biologist to understand that there is a difference between life and non life? That’s the hypothesis. And then, do you need to be a biologist to do the math? I think not. You have committed the genetic fallacy.

That was not what the conversation was about.
You have committed the "I didn't pay attention to the first half of the thread but really want to prop up my beliefs" fallacy.

 

[SLP]

Judges are qualified to determine that ID is not based on science?

Jones was asked by the ID side to make that determination. They thought that since he was Bush appointee that he would do their bidding (Phyllis Schlafly wrote as much in her screed against Jones after the trial).

But biochemists are not qualified to determine that ID is based on science? e.g. Michael Behe

Behe, more or less in his own words, said that if the definitions were loosened such that ID was science, then astrology would also be.

 

[SLP]

Yes, I do.
1. Darwinism has become so ingrained as a scientific fact that to think any other way brings condemnation and accusations of ignorance on anyone who dares to defy it.
2. ID even though it points out the weaknesses in Darwinism by the modern scientific knowledge of today it also points towards an intelligent designer/God/superior intelligence,...which is not allowed in the classroom today.

The way I see it, the science to explain the origins of life should be taught as - this is what we Know because of this.....and this is what we Don't Know because of this....

That is how I think Sermons should be done - "Ancient tribesmen thought this, but we don't really know..."

 

[SLP]

But biochemists are not qualified to determine that ID is based on science? e.g. Michael Behe

Are phony mathematicians like Berlinski qualified to pass judgement on evolution?
What about religious philosophers like Meyer?

 

[Hank77]

Are phony mathematicians like Berlinski qualified to pass judgement on evolution?
What about religious philosophers like Meyer?

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris.

I didn't know that schools like Stanford hired phony mathematicians to teach at their prestigious schools.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I didn't know that schools like Stanford hired phony mathematicians to teach at their prestigious schools.

Is that this David Berlinski, because he doesn't seem to let his expertise in mathematics interfere with his misuse of it in his anti-evolutionary arguments...

 

[Hank77]

Is that this David Berlinski, because he doesn't seem to let his expertise in mathematics interfere with his misuse of it in his anti-evolutionary arguments...

Yes, it is the same.

 

[SLP]

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris.

I didn't know that schools like Stanford hired phony mathematicians to teach at their prestigious schools.

Apparently so.

But cool on you for your continued fallacious appeal to false authority.

 

[SLP]

Yes, it is the same.

You didn't read the link, I guess:

"The enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument[edit]
One of Berlinski’s most celebrated anti-evolution arguments is his calculation that at least 50,000 changes were required to change a cow into a whale (he stopped counting). Of course, since even if he was capable of listing out these differences at an implausibly fast average rate of one every ten seconds, it would still take more than 5 days of non-stop 24h-hour activity to accomplish this, few believe that he actually did what he claimed to have done.[10] Berlinski does not, of course, know anything about the evolution of whales, missing such rather central details as the fact that cows did not evolve into whales.[11]"

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you saying that biologists are unintelligent?

That depends. Are they licensed biologists?

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think we are ever going to understand life's origins until we understand the soul.

And we are never going to understand the soul.

God is happy, with that!

 

[MissRowy]

I don't think we are ever going to understand life's origins until we understand the soul.

And we are never going to understand the soul.

God is happy, with that!

Dude...Soul has nothing to actually do with lifes origins. The first lifeforms on earth did not have souls. And your post is kinda meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

God is happy you don't understand your soul - that's all I'm saying.

Understand something else!

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.
He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris.

I didn't know that schools like Stanford hired phony mathematicians to teach at their prestigious schools.

You piqued my curiosity so I looked him up. If I believed man and dinosaurs coexisted then I'd say he's nearly old enough to have hopped on one and told it to giddy up, haha. But in all seriousness, he's 77 years old, and he taught courses here for a few years at the beginning of his career about half a century ago. He was never a tenured professor at Stanford. You can only search through the course catalogue archives online back to the 80s, so since he was here prior to then I have no idea what math courses, if any, he actually taught here. I find it peculiar he claims to have taught philosophy, English and math in that narrow sliver of time. He did have a hodgepodge of academic interests in his youth, though, flitting from studying medieval history to philosophy, then to math and molecular biology.

It wasn't until the 1990s when he was in his mid-50s that he became zealous about critiquing evolution and atheism. He was raised Jewish but is agnostic. He's described himself as a crank and contrarian, flamboyant, and proudly claims to have been fired from every job he held. I think he has a lust for attention. It's strange that he boasts about being so iconoclastic and yet name-drops his affiliation with elite universities to boost his credibility. Anyways.

A few other things to note. The Hoover Institution is located on Stanford's campus, but its operation is segregated from the university itself. It has its own board of overseers. Many of the research fellows never went to or taught at Stanford. The fellowship does not entail any teaching or formal administrative responsibilities. The fellowships are for five years, but they can be continuously renewed. Peter Robinson, the moderator of the discussion, has no background in science. He's a Republican speechwriter best known for having written the famed speech President Reagan delivered with the line "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Back when Republicans had a different attitude about walls and Russia, haha.

 

[SLP]

That depends. Are they licensed biologists?

"Licensed"? I think we know who is and who is not intelligent now, thanks.