Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Gene2memE]

Michael Denton - Evolution Still A Theory in Crisis. Hmmm, I have thoughts. This book is now nearly a decade old. It wasn't very convincing the first time I read it, and I don't think it's gotten better with age.

Evolutionary biologists have also completely failed to notice that their theory is in "crisis".

I'd argue it's Creationism in a Lab Coat Intelligent Design that is having the capital C Crisis.

It now has zero impact on the scientific literature - I can find zero articles in peer reviewed journals that are specifically about or advocating for 'Intelligent Design' or 'Intelligent Design Theory' in the last five years.

Their own "research" has slowed to nearly nothing. In the last five years, the Discovery Institute's in-house journal (BIO-complexity) published a total of 8 research articles (including one article that was split into three parts). There were also 7 'Critical Reviews', although most of these are just arguing that the standard model of 'X' is insufficient to explain 'X' or doing the 'large numbers are improbable' thing.

Intelligent Design has basically disappeared from the public consciousness as well. Google data shows it's generating about 1/50th of the search traffic that it did in 2005. The main page of their website generates between 13,000 and 25,000 organic page views per month (in comparison, the main page of the small firm I work for generates about 275,000 to 315,000 organic page views per month).

The Discovery Institute's 'Teach the Controversy' and the 'Wedge Strategy' are moribund, never to realistically be revived. They're so dead that in the last 18 months three of the blogs that track the DI's activities are no longer active (one shutting down after 16 years!).

ID is dead. The scientists think so, the public thinks so, even the creationists think so. All that's left is a cordyceps zombie continuing to perform a twisted facsimile of actual science, being powered by weird culture warriors with more money than actual sense.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Michael Denton - Evolution Still A Theory in Crisis. Hmmm, I have thoughts. This book is now nearly a decade old. It wasn't very convincing the first time I read it, and I don't think it's gotten better with age.

Evolutionary biologists have also completely failed to notice that their theory is in "crisis".

I'd argue it's Creationism in a Lab Coat Intelligent Design that is having the capital C Crisis.

It now has zero impact on the scientific literature - I can find zero articles in peer reviewed journals that are specifically about or advocating for 'Intelligent Design' or 'Intelligent Design Theory' in the last five years.

Their own "research" has slowed to nearly nothing. In the last five years, the Discovery Institute's in-house journal (BIO-complexity) published a total of 8 research articles (including one article that was split into three parts). There were also 7 'Critical Reviews', although most of these are just arguing that the standard model of 'X' is insufficient to explain 'X' or doing the 'large numbers are improbable' thing.

Intelligent Design has basically disappeared from the public consciousness as well. Google data shows it's generating about 1/50th of the search traffic that it did in 2005. The main page of their website generates between 13,000 and 25,000 organic page views per month (in comparison, the main page of the small firm I work for generates about 275,000 to 315,000 organic page views per month).

The Discovery Institute's 'Teach the Controversy' and the 'Wedge Strategy' are moribund, never to realistically be revived. They're so dead that in the last 18 months three of the blogs that track the DI's activities are no longer active (one shutting down after 16 years!).

ID is dead. The scientists think so, the public thinks so, even the creationists think so. All that's left is a cordyceps zombie continuing to perform a twisted facsimile of actual science, being powered by weird culture warriors with more money than actual sense.

/thread

 

[NBB]

"3 Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves"

 

[NBB]

Michael Denton - Evolution Still A Theory in Crisis. Hmmm, I have thoughts. This book is now nearly a decade old. It wasn't very convincing the first time I read it, and I don't think it's gotten better with age.

Evolutionary biologists have also completely failed to notice that their theory is in "crisis".

I'd argue it's Creationism in a Lab Coat Intelligent Design that is having the capital C Crisis.

It now has zero impact on the scientific literature - I can find zero articles in peer reviewed journals that are specifically about or advocating for 'Intelligent Design' or 'Intelligent Design Theory' in the last five years.

Their own "research" has slowed to nearly nothing. In the last five years, the Discovery Institute's in-house journal (BIO-complexity) published a total of 8 research articles (including one article that was split into three parts). There were also 7 'Critical Reviews', although most of these are just arguing that the standard model of 'X' is insufficient to explain 'X' or doing the 'large numbers are improbable' thing.

Intelligent Design has basically disappeared from the public consciousness as well. Google data shows it's generating about 1/50th of the search traffic that it did in 2005. The main page of their website generates between 13,000 and 25,000 organic page views per month (in comparison, the main page of the small firm I work for generates about 275,000 to 315,000 organic page views per month).

The Discovery Institute's 'Teach the Controversy' and the 'Wedge Strategy' are moribund, never to realistically be revived. They're so dead that in the last 18 months three of the blogs that track the DI's activities are no longer active (one shutting down after 16 years!).

ID is dead. The scientists think so, the public thinks so, even the creationists think so. All that's left is a cordyceps zombie continuing to perform a twisted facsimile of actual science, being powered by weird culture warriors with more money than actual sense.

If God made us, he had in mind what we would become, that means, we are intelligently created. Evolution is just an excuse to discard God.

 

[Gene2memE]

If God made us, he had in mind what we would become, that means, we are intelligently created.

If wishes were fishes, we'd all swim in riches.

Evolution is just an excuse to discard God.

Evolution is "just" the theory that explains biodiversity and the history of life. It's the conclusion that we've drawn from our observations of nature.

Religious creation myths are immaterial to it.

The Modern Synthesis is "just an excuse to discard God" the same way that Germ Theory, or Plate Tectonics, or the Standard Model, or Quantum Field Theory are. That is, it produces a useful model of the natural world which is confirmed by the available evidence and validated through its predictive power.

The alternatives - be it Intelligent Design or some other kind of creationism - fail to do that. In fact, they're far worse than that. They assume their conclusions and then attempt post hoc justifications to make the available evidence fit.

The irony of this situation is that this requires creationists of all stripes to violate the commandments of the very book that they're trying to defend. The bonus for me (and I suspect for others), is that this produces many reasons to point and laugh.

 

[BCP1928]

If God made us, he had in mind what we would become, that means, we are intelligently created. Evolution is just an excuse to discard God.

There are lots of excuses for that. The theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. If you want to discard God, go ahead, but you can't really blame the theory of evolution for it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If God made us, he had in mind what we would become, that means, we are intelligently created. Evolution is just an excuse to discard God.

God used a process incredibly similar, if not outright, like evolution to make humanity and everything on the Earth.
That's what studying His creation shows.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's important to consider the Discovery Institute's own stated goals and strategy in the Wedge Document.
Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
"Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."
20+ years after the Wedge Document, they have little to show for their efforts, and have stopped even trying. Phase I was a flop, so no point in going on to Phases II & III, although that hasn't stopped them from their attempts to indoctrinate.

25+ years after the Wedge Document...

 

[NBB]

God used a process incredibly similar, if not outright, like evolution to make humanity and everything on the Earth.
That's what studying His creation shows.

The problem evolutionist say is a process that it works alone and does its thing, it doesn't need God or something. We have a soul inside, we are not just a piece of meat, that deletes that assumption. Is harder to believe a bunch of dust in space, became beauty, and creatures with consciousness and intelligence. That just does not happen, I know that is not evolution, but the same persons that believes in evolution believes in that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem evolutionist say is a process that it works alone and does its thing, it doesn't need God or something. We have a soul inside, we are not just a piece of meat, that deletes that assumption. Is harder to believe a bunch of dust in space, became beauty, and creatures with consciousness and intelligence. That just does not happen, I know that is not evolution, but the same persons that believes in evolution believes in that.

... yeah, see none of what you said shows that evolution contradicts the existence of God at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We have a soul inside, we are not just a piece of meat, that deletes that assumption.

Can you demonstrate that without using religious texts?

Is harder to believe a bunch of dust in space, became beauty, and creatures with consciousness and intelligence. That just does not happen, I know that is not evolution, but the same persons that believes in evolution believes in that.

This is entirely an "argument" from personal incredulity. It rejects multiple sciences whole cloth.

Since you mention space dust, do you reject the formation of planets from the dusty debris around forming stars? If so, what do you say to the evidence that it happens?

 

[BCP1928]

The problem evolutionist say is a process that it works alone and does its thing, it doesn't need God or something. We have a soul inside, we are not just a piece of meat, that deletes that assumption. Is harder to believe a bunch of dust in space, became beauty, and creatures with consciousness and intelligence. That just does not happen, I know that is not evolution, but the same persons that believes in evolution believes in that.

You have just effectively denounced Roman Catholics as atheists (not to mention many other Christians and non-Christian theists as well.) I don't know what you personally believe, but it is considered impolite on CF to say such things out loud. It's not even a good argument for your views because too many people know it to be false.

 

[expos4ever]

Here we touch on an important point, which needs emphasis : Organisms are complex systems, and their assembly during the course of evolution, by universal assent (e.g ., Darwin, Fisher, Dawkins, Fred Hoyle, Dennett ), could never have occurred by “pure chance.” Some form of direction is essential! (odd that he should mention an astronomer and a philosopher when discussing evolution).

Here is what I think is going on. Some defenders of creationism misrepresent evolution by suggesting it is a process that is entirely random. It is not. Mutations may be random, but natural selection is most certainly not. Therefore, while it may indeed be true that some form of direction is essential, this direction need not be from a Divine being, natural selection can provide such direction.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm still waiting to see what @Mountainmike has to say on the matter.

 

[BCP1928]

Here is what I think is going on. Some defenders of creationism misrepresent evolution by suggesting it is a process that is entirely random. It is not. Mutations may be random, but natural selection is most certainly not. Therefore, while it may indeed be true that some form of direction is essential, this direction need not be from a Divine being, natural selection can provide such direction.

It;s not random of course, but what it is is contingent--there is not predetermined outcome for the evolutionary process. For example, if you wound the clock back to the first life form and let evolution start over from the beginning, the odds of getting the exact same biosphere that we have today are vanishingly small. That is the basis of creationist arguments which declare, for example, the impossibility of random mutations lining up just right to turn the forelimbs of a small rodent eventually into wings. Creationists are right--it is a highly unlikely outcome, but since it is not a necessary outcome it doesn't matter and does not really work as an argument against evolution.

 

[NBB]

You have just effectively denounced Roman Catholics as atheists (not to mention many other Christians and non-Christian theists as well.) I don't know what you personally believe, but it is considered impolite on CF to say such things out loud. It's not even a good argument for your views because too many people know it to be false.

God made us, we are spiritual beings, evolution says it does not need God at all to function and do its thing, that a big lie.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God made us, we are spiritual beings, evolution says it does not need God at all to function and do its thing, that a big lie.

What's to stop God using evolution to make us?

 

[Bradskii]

...evolution says it does not need God at all to function and do its thing...

No, it doesn't. And if I asked you to show me where it does say that then you wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to look.

 

[BCP1928]

God made us, we are spiritual beings, evolution says it does not need God at all to function and do its thing, that a big lie.

Yes, it's a lie all right--a lie told by creationists like you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

God made us, we are spiritual beings, evolution says it does not need God at all to function and do its thing, that a big lie.

Scientifically a god is a useless concept. We have no need of it. This is not just biology or evolution, but all science that takes no account of a god of any sort.