Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[mark kennedy]

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.

Indeed that is true but you have to have some confidence in the ability of thinking people to come to their own conclusions. Darwinism has been criticized it's entire history and while a prevailing philosophy of natural history, still has it's skeptics.

 

[mark kennedy]

Metaphysical Naturalism as in strict materialism?

It can be, Darwinism is obviously an attempt at a unified theory based on exclusively naturalistic assumptions.

 

[Sanoy]

Metaphysical Naturalism as in strict materialism?

I'm going to say almost entirely, just because I can't quite recall where emergent materialism of consciousness would go. But basically the belief that only the natural world exists.

 

[Sanoy]

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.

If you find a Christian that believes God went to the earth and dropped off a prokaryote and then left please have that person email me so we can talk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you find a Christian that believes God went to the earth and dropped off a prokaryote and then left please have that person email me so we can talk.

You might want to talk to Kenneth Miller:

Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia

But he probably thinks that abiogenesis is how life first appeared on the Earth.

 

[Speedwell]

You are conflating guided evolution with naturalistic evolution.

Do you not think that an omniscient God is capable of devising a system of random variation and natural selection capable of producing the results He wanted without "guidance?"

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science today.

This "I say it, hence it is fact" is really getting old.

Once again, prove first there is no "real" doubt, or what makes the doubt in the OP not "real", or that there isn't enough doubt to constitute "real" doubt. Then prove that evolution exists at all....I'll be waiting.

And to save us both time, once that happens, I'll listen...otherwise, same ol' same ol', and not worth the time taken for reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This "I say it, hence it is fact" is really getting old.

Once again, prove first there is no "real" doubt, or what makes the doubt in the OP not "real", or that there isn't enough doubt to constitute "real" doubt. Then prove that evolution exists at all....I'll be waiting.

And to save us both time, once that happens, I'll listen...otherwise, same ol' same ol', and not worth the time taken for reply.

It may be "getting old" but it is a simple fact.

You don't even understand the concept of evidence and run away when I offer to help you to understand.

If you don't understand evidence you can't understand why scientists, those that do understand scientific evidence, accept evolution overwhelmingly. On the order of 99.8% of all biologists accept the theory.

When you learn what evidence is then you can have a foot to stand on when you make such demands. Until then you don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you not think that an omniscient God is capable of devising a system of random variation and natural selection capable of producing the results He wanted without "guidance?"

Yep, it is rather amazing how some Christians try to limit the power of the God that they worship.

 

[Dirk1540]

One of the biggest problems in debating is when people don't address the argument. BOTH how large of a group holds a position, and what the credentials are of the person arguing are the most played out and useless arguments. What if Stephen Meyer was a cashier at 7-11? His arguments all the sudden make less sense if that were true? The opposite can also be incredibly overrated, a person loaded with credentials. Many times in a company the person with no, or little credentials has better skills & knowledge then a person with better credentials. It happens all the time.

When a person 'Loaded with credentials' fires a technical challenge at Stephen Meyer HOW HE RESPONDS are his credentials! If I'm sitting at the kitchen table struggling with a calculus problem, and my 6 year old daughter says "Give me that!!" and correctly solves the problem and throws the paper & pencil back at me...am I to conclude 'Absolutely ridiculous answer, she's in 1st grade for crying out loud!!" ??

Does this seriously have to be pointed out all the time, attacking the person and not the argument is literally a logical error!! But the neo-Darwinians, the so called champions of logic, are the ones who break the rule over & over & over. The entire point of the video are the parts addressing the technical problems. Man I'm almost waiting for someone to argue that the host never finished high school therefore we should not even listen to it lol.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It may be "getting old" but it is a simple fact.

You don't even understand the concept of evidence and run away when I offer to help you to understand.

If you don't understand evidence you can't understand why scientists, those that do understand scientific evidence, accept evolution overwhelmingly. On the order of 99.8% of all biologists accept the theory.

When you learn what evidence is then you can have a foot to stand on when you make such demands. Until then you don't.

Dodge.

Wonder what the odds are any one that has enough sense to post to these boards, doesn't understand the meaning of evidence?

A simple "I can't answer", or "what I claimed was not actually true"... would be a lot more respectable an answer than wasting our time with really really bad excuses.

 

[Sanoy]

You might want to talk to Kenneth Miller:

Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia

But he probably thinks that abiogenesis is how life first appeared on the Earth.

I didn't see anything in that summary about him thinking God dropped off a prokaryote and left.

 

[Sanoy]

Do you not think that an omniscient God is capable of devising a system of random variation and natural selection capable of producing the results He wanted without "guidance?"

If he devised it, then it's not random is it.

You are a Christian yes? Why would you be one of the last to leave the sinking ship of Darwinism. The atheists have left that boat ahead of you Christian, what are you doing left aboard?

 

[AirPo]

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.

Subduction Zone is not the one making assumptions

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dodge.

Wonder what the odds are any one that has enough sense to post to these boards, doesn't understand the meaning of evidence?

A simple "I can't answer", or "what I claimed was not actually true"... would be a lot more respectable an answer than wasting our time with really really bad excuses.

Nope, you dodged. The offer was out there to help you to understand the concept of evidence. Others have supplied you with the evidence that supports evolution. I have supported the evidence that supports evolution. You denied it or ignored it. That shows that you either do not understand evidence and how it is used or you are extremely dishonest. I am going with the "does not understand evidence" option.

When a person is offered help and runs away no one takes his demands seriously.

And by the way, almost every creationist does not understand the concept of evidence. That is why most of them still are creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If he devised it, then it's not random is it.

You are a Christian yes? Why would you be one of the last to leave the sinking ship of Darwinism. The atheists have left that boat ahead of you Christian, what are you doing left aboard?

Creationists have been claiming that "Darwinism" has been sinking every since he came up with his theory. Now it has been changed, almost every theory goes through revisions. But these tend to be improvements and clarifications. Like it or not common descent is a fact. And there is no evidence for the hand of a god in evolution.

Why do you think that Christians cannot accept the theory of evolution as it stands?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't see anything in that summary about him thinking God dropped off a prokaryote and left.

There is no need. You are the one making the rather strange claim. It is up to you to support it. Miller is not only pro-evolution, he wrote one of the most commonly used college textbooks on the subject(currently at #5):

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0132013495/ezvid02-20

 

[Speedwell]

If he devised it, then it's not random is it.

You are a Christian yes? Why would you be one of the last to leave the sinking ship of Darwinism. The atheists have left that boat ahead of you Christian, what are you doing left aboard?

That He devised it does not mean it is "guided." It is "random" in the sense that heritable variation is random, though subject to non-random natural selection.

What "boat" is this you are speaking of?

 

[klutedavid]

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

Hello Subduction Zone.

You made the statement.

And there is no evidence of a "God" being involved.

The universe and everything within is the real evidence that not only, that God exists but also that God created the universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you not think that an omniscient God is capable of devising a system of random variation and natural selection capable of producing the results He wanted without "guidance?"

Well, He might have got it wrong.

Oh, wait...