Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Dirk1540]

I haven't been keeping up so this is new to me, but not new as in yesterday, it's news from The Royal Society in London last year. Apparently neo-Darwinian evolution is now getting enough doubts inside the scientific community that there is now a 'Third Way' theory brewing...

 

[mark kennedy]

I haven't been keeping up so this is new to me, but not new as in yesterday, it's news from The Royal Society in London last year. Apparently neo-Darwinian evolution is now getting enough doubts inside the scientific community that there is now a 'Third Way' theory brewing...

That's nothing new, scientists have always criticized Darwinism, there has always been some alternative views out there.

 

[ExodusMe]

That's nothing new, scientists have always criticized Darwinism, there has always been some alternative views out there.

I would agree to an extent. Scientists have always had doubts about evolution. It is whether they want to accept or state those doubts as there is too much at stake for voicing their concerns. Many professors lose their jobs just for stating doubts & criticism towards evolution.

 

[Dave RP]

I haven't been keeping up so this is new to me, but not new as in yesterday, it's news from The Royal Society in London last year. Apparently neo-Darwinian evolution is now getting enough doubts inside the scientific community that there is now a 'Third Way' theory brewing...

Yes but there is not a discussion in the scientific community about god inspired intelligent design, it seems it a development of darwins theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would agree to an extent. Scientists have always had doubts about evolution. It is whether they want to accept or state those doubts as there is too much at stake for voicing their concerns. Many professors lose their jobs just for stating doubts & criticism towards evolution.

There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science today. Yes, there are a few loons and deniers, but they are a very very small percentage of scientists and they tend to be unable to do anything in the way of biology.

What is only being discussed today is how it happened. And there is no evidence of a "God" being involved. So the few ID supporters are again in the fringe at best.
ETA: By the way, Stephen Meyer has no credibility in biology. He has a bachelor's degree in physics and Earth sciences. He has a PhD in the history of science. He is not an authority on evolution at all.

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

 

[ExodusMe]

There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science today. Yes, there are a few loons and deniers, but they are a very very small percentage of scientists and they tend to be unable to do anything in the way of biology.

What is only being discussed today is how it happened. And there is no evidence of a "God" being involved. So the few ID supporters are again in the fringe at best.

Great example of how academic freedom of thought is handled today. Thanks Subduction Zone.

TLDR: don't disagree with the group think otherwise they will label you as incompetent and loony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great example of how academic freedom of thought is handled today. Thanks Subduction Zone.

TLDR: don't disagree with the group think otherwise they will label you as incompetent and loony.

Please, you have that backwards. You need to check out these loons.

The people that you follow have been shown to be incompetent and loons, and at times extremely dishonest. They can't publish in well respected peer reviewed journals because their ideas are more than easy to demonstrate to be wrong.

Rather than subjecting us to torture of listening to an incompetent for two hours why don't you bring up his best arguments?

 

[Speedwell]

Great example of how academic freedom of thought is handled today. Thanks Subduction Zone.

TLDR: don't disagree with the group think otherwise they will label you as incompetent and loony.

That depends on whether or not the person disagreeing is actually incompetent or loony. Don't get me wrong, new ideas are often a hard sell in the science community. But if the new idea has merit--and evidence--it eventually will be accepted.

 

[ExodusMe]

Please, you have that backwards. You need to check out these loons.

The people that you follow have been shown to be incompetent and loons, and at times extremely dishonest. They can't publish in well respected peer reviewed journals because their ideas are more than easy to demonstrate to be wrong.

Rather than subjecting us to torture of listening to an incompetent for two hours why don't you bring up his best arguments?

I am not debating the theories proposed by any individual. The OP is concerning the internal disagreement about neo-Darwinism. To call ID loony is to beg the question and it only shows the narrow thought-life you have.

I am open to the academic theories of many sources. To call people loony in an outright scholastic manner is just pathetic. University literally means unity in diversity (i.e. a diversity of thought), which only survived under Christian academia. Once secularism took over the university the freedom of thought in schools has been non-existent. This is true within the scientific community and morality & ethics where the terms of micro-agression, etc... have been thriving. Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? There is no education in public education anymore. People don't think for themselves. They have been indoctrinated by the masses. I used to be an atheist just like you @Subduction Zone until Jesus set me free. Find your freedom in Him and he will heal you.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm happy, but I'm also fearful. Darwinism isn't a beast that can be killed, it's just one of the heads sitting upon the neck of naturalism. Behind that neck is the true beast. What is preferred out of naturalism is an "epistemic mechanism" that will passively reject God. It removes from the individual the need to personally reject God by creating a system which removes God for them. Darwinism doesn't have hordes of apologists because it is beloved. It is beloved for what it's "epistemic mechanism" provides. The apologists of evolution will fight bullishly with every resource to defend Darwinism as truth and evident fact, but in a single moment, without reverence, they would toss it aside like a rind to grab hold of it's firmer replacement.

So why would I be afraid? Well with every year we discover that naturalism is less and less equipped to give us the world we live in, or even adhere to it's predictions. Right now, people run to the head, Darwinism. If you cut the head off they will run to the neck, Naturalism. If you cut the neck off they will run to the beast that supports it all. And I think the beast will provide everything that naturalism provided, as well as an illusion of those things that religion provided that naturalism could not. Those people that now clutch to Darwinism will not seek God when it falls, they will seek what they have always sought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not debating the theories proposed by any individual. The OP is concerning the internal disagreement about neo-Darwinism. To call ID loony is to beg the question and it only shows the narrow thought-life you have.

There will always be disagreement in the sciences. The problem is that this video relies far to heavily on Stephen Meyer, he is not a scientist. He does not follow the scientific method. And no, to point out the fact that ID is loony is not begging the question. Lastly you should not accuse others of being close minded when you really have no clue about them.

I am open to the academic theories of many sources. To call people loony in an outright scholastic manner is just pathetic. University literally means unity in diversity (i.e. a diversity of thought), which only survived under Christian academia. Once secularism took over the university the freedom of thought in schools has been non-existent. This is true within the scientific community and morality & ethics where the terms of micro-agression, etc... have been thriving. Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? There is no education in public education anymore. People don't think for themselves. They have been indoctrinated by the masses. I used to be an atheist just like you @Subduction Zone until Jesus set me free. Find your freedom in Him and he will heal you.

Me too. The problem is that ID is not a theory. It is not even a testable hypothesis. And no, it is never pathetic to call a loon a loon. You may be ignorant of that fact but that does not mean that others are.

And I seriously doubt if you were an atheist like me. You may have been an atheist, but you were probably one for as bad of a reason as the reason that you give ID any credibility at all.

I asked for the best arguments from that video. I am willing to show how they are wrong. Amazingly no one took me up on that offer. (actually, not amazing at all).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm happy, but I'm also fearful. Darwinism isn't a beast that can be killed, it's just one of the heads sitting upon the neck of naturalism. Behind that neck is the true beast. What is preferred out of naturalism is an "epistemic mechanism" that will passively reject God. It removes from the individual the need to personally reject God by creating a system which removes God for them. Darwinism doesn't have hordes of apologists because it is beloved. It is beloved for what it's "epistemic mechanism" provides. The apologists of evolution will fight bullishly with every resource to defend Darwinism as truth and evident fact, but in a single moment, without reverence, they would toss it aside like a rind to get behind a new theory.

So why would I be afraid? Well with every year we discover that naturalism is less and less equipped to give us the world we live in, or even adhere to it's predictions. Right now, people run to the head, Darwinism. If you cut the head off they will run to the neck, Naturalism. If you cut the neck off they will run to the beast. And I think the beast will provide everything that naturalism provided, as well as an illusion of those things that religion provided that naturalism could not.

Nonsense and babble. The fact that life is the product of evolution is not "anti-God" in any way at all. Does it show the creation myths of the world to be wrong? Yes, but that does not mean that there is no God. Most Christians have no problem with the fact that life is the product of evolution.

 

[Sanoy]

Nonsense and babble. The fact that life is the product of evolution is not "anti-God" in any way at all. Does it show the creation myths of the world to be wrong? Yes, but that does not mean that there is no God. Most Christians have no problem with the fact that life is the product of evolution.

You are conflating guided evolution with naturalistic evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are conflating guided evolution with naturalistic evolution.

No, I am not. There is no evidence for guided evolution. Unless you can think of some. Even natural evolution is not evidence against God. I don't ever see atheists claim this. It is usually a strawman of theists at best.

 

[majj27]

I'm happy, but I'm also fearful. Darwinism isn't a beast that can be killed, it's just one of the heads sitting upon the neck of naturalism. Behind that neck is the true beast. What is preferred out of naturalism is an "epistemic mechanism" that will passively reject God. It removes from the individual the need to personally reject God by creating a system which removes God for them. Darwinism doesn't have hordes of apologists because it is beloved. It is beloved for what it's "epistemic mechanism" provides. The apologists of evolution will fight bullishly with every resource to defend Darwinism as truth and evident fact, but in a single moment, without reverence, they would toss it aside like a rind to grab hold of it's firmer replacement.

That's an odd argument. Science is kind of based on the idea that if a "better" explanation comes along, that's the one you go with. It's a pretty central part of the whole process. Once you learn that disease is caused by germs and not plague-demons, you stop trying to ward off the plague-demons with magic flutes and start washing your hands instead. Works better. Also, I don't know of anyone who has ever described evolution as "beloved" before. Accepted, yes. Beloved? Uh-uh. That would be akin to describing electron orbitals as "beloved"

Personally, I just find them kind of nice.

 

[Sanoy]

No, I am not. There is no evidence for guided evolution. Unless you can think of some. Even natural evolution is not evidence against God. I don't ever see atheists claim this. It is usually a strawman of theists at best.

Conflation - the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Naturalistic evolution is not the same as guided evolution. The statement you made assumes guided evolution - "Most Christians have no problem with the fact that life is the product of evolution." My statement very clearly refers to naturalistic evolution. Your response conflates the two whether you agree with me or not.

 

[majj27]

Conflation - the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Naturalistic evolution is not the same as guided evolution. The statement you made assumes guided evolution - "Most Christians have no problem with the fact that life is the product of evolution." My statement very clearly refers to naturalistic evolution. Your response conflates the two whether you agree with me or not.

Just so I'm not making assumptions, what definition are you using for "naturalistic evolution"? The main hit I got on a quick search for that was Conservapedia.

 

[Sanoy]

That's an odd argument. Science is kind of based on the idea that if a "better" explanation comes along, that's the one you go with.

In reality there are two types of betters. The "better" system I refer to is the idea that naturalistic explanations will always be preferred. Your use of "better" is the idea that the better naturalistic explanation will always be preferred. The better you refer to is fine, that's just science. The better I refer to is metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Conflation - the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Naturalistic evolution is not the same as guided evolution. The statement you made assumes guided evolution - "Most Christians have no problem with the fact that life is the product of evolution." My statement very clearly refers to naturalistic evolution. Your response conflates the two whether you agree with me or not.

There is no reason to assume that Christians that accept evolution think that God had to guide it. Just as most do not seem to think that God has to guide falling.

 

[majj27]

In reality there are two types of betters. The "better" system I refer to is the idea that naturalistic explanations will always be preferred. Your use of "better" is the idea that the better naturalistic explanation will always be preferred. The better you refer to is fine, that's just science. The better I refer to is metaphysical naturalism.

Metaphysical Naturalism as in strict materialism?