Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Why Darwinism Is Doomed”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Leave it to Jonathan Wells to tell it like it is:

. . . The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last. . . .

Source: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166

Comments
John A., you never commented on the Spetner link I provided; to some extent, you echo him, but could you simplify what you mean? You wote:
THE PRESCRIBED EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg.
How is that different from Physicist Lee Spetner, here? http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
At the outset, I shall establish an important and necessary guideline in this discussion of evolution. The word evolution is generally used in at least two different senses, and the distinction between them is important. On the one hand, the word evolution is used to denote the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source. It is the grand sweep of evolution that is supposed to have led from a simple beginning, something perhaps simpler than a bacterium, to all organisms living today, including humans. This descent is supposed to have occurred through purely natural means. Neo-Darwinian theory (NDT), which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection. I shall denote the word evolution used in this sense as Evolution A. When evolution is discussed for popular consumption, it is most often Evolution A. The second sense in which the word evolution is used is to denote any kind of change of a population. The change can sometimes occur in response to environmental pressure (artificial or natural selection), and sometimes it can just be random (genetic drift). I shall denote the word used in this second sense as Evolution B. Evolution B has been observed. Evolution A is an inference, but is not observable. The distinction between these two meanings of evolution parallels the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, but the two pairs of terms are not identical. Evolution A is certainly what is called macroevolution, but what is called macroevolution is not identical with Evolution A. In any case, I prefer to use the A and B to avoid having to carry whatever baggage might go with the macro/micro distinction. The distinction between these two meanings of evolution is often ignored by the defenders of Neo-Darwinian evolution. But the distinction is critical. The claim is made for Evolution A, but the proof offered is often limited to Evolution B. The implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A. But this is not so. Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy. Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved. NDT is generally accepted to be that theory. The strength of the circumstantial evidence for Evolution A can therefore be no better than the strength of NDT. Antibiotic Resistance as an Example of Evolution Spetner: Continuing his effort to show the evolutionary efficacy of beneficial mutations, Max presented in his essay the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by microorganisms as an example of evolution. He said one can “demonstrate a beneficial mutation … with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance.” Such an experiment shows that “de novo beneficial mutations” can arise. My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution. I summarize that argument here. All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms. Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant. The mold was found to produce something that could lyse and kill the bacteria. That something was a molecule later named penicillin. Afterwards, other antibiotics were found to be produced by other microorganisms, such as soil bacteria. Soil has long been recognized in folk medicine as a cure for infections. The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms. Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell. Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics. The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change. It is an example only of Evolution B. It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium. The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide, and this is the kind of example Max presented. Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution A cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity. In the final paragraph of my original critique, I said the following: The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NDT that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! Many have lost information. To support NDT one would have to show many examples of random mutations that add information. Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, we can safely dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source.
P. Phillips
October 4, 2006
October
10
Oct
4
04
2006
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Davison -- whatever.P. Phillips
October 4, 2006
October
10
Oct
4
04
2006
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Oops - I didn't type/spell John's name right! “Evolution is debatable; future adaptation is inevitable. John A. Davision is incorrigible.” P.S. PhillipsP. Phillips
October 4, 2006
October
10
Oct
4
04
2006
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Caught in the spam filter -- again -- but: "Evolution is debatable; future adaptation is inevitable. John A. Davions is incorrigible." P.S. PhillipsP. Phillips
October 4, 2006
October
10
Oct
4
04
2006
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Out of sight, out of mind. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 4, 2006
October
10
Oct
4
04
2006
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Pav or anyone else for that matter. I would like to hear a response to the questions I posed in my message # 61. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
jpark320 wrote: "Just like your claim that Christianity is not a a historically valid truth is way off the mark. In fact it is one of the reasons I am Christian ie extremely well preserved Biblical writings, archae0logical validation, yes inner revclation of not just me but millions through out the ages, and even nature itself (ID/Creation) makes it clearly 100% evident to me." It may be 100% evident to you but there are very plausible hypotheses by respected scholars that even though the person of Jesus may have lived (and of course some even dispute this) this historical Jesus has very little to do with the Jesus of Christianity. In fact some would even say that there is a controversy over the person of Jesus and that the historical evidence is ambigious and can be interpreted many different ways). Read anything by Bart Ehrman, Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, and you will find plenty of evidence that suggests the traditional story of Christianity is quite easily falsified.John Singleton
October 1, 2006
October
10
Oct
1
01
2006
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Pav Science did not begin in the West in Christian seminaries. It began in Greece in preChristian times . It is true that The Catholic Church was instrumental in keeping Greek science alive through the middle ages and was the source of much of applied science and agriculture through the ingenuity of the monks. Geometry was from the Greeks and algebra from the Arabs. Rene Descartes finally united them centuries later when he saw a fly buzzing around in the corner of his bed room or so the story goes. The three intersecting lines became the axes of analytical geometry. Imagine the kick that must have been for him to be able to achieve that great breakthrough. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undeniable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 1, 2006
October
10
Oct
1
01
2006
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Gee whiz Pav and I thought I had provided a new "theory" with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I use the word "theory" very lightly of course. Am I to understand that the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is unacceptable to the supporters of the so-called "Intelligent Design movement?" From your comments, so it would seem. If that is so why? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 1, 2006
October
10
Oct
1
01
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
The heavy-handed suppression of criticism here is disappointing, to say the least.obrienr
September 30, 2006
September
09
Sep
30
30
2006
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
@ Linda Slater
Well, as somebody pointed out you are indeed being honest. But if you are being serious then I think it shouldn’t be hard to understand why people would object to this framework being taught in a science class. As to Christianity being Truth I assume you mean that in a personal-revelation sense, not objective, verifiable, historical truth, because there is more than reasonable doubt to suppose that it isn’t.
I'm along w/ everything PaV says, how much of a scientific framework would you need to say "Hey, this wasn't random it was designed." You're right that I don't necessarily advocate creationism in the classroom (I ain't too opposed either), back on topic, how many high schoolers have a so-called "scientific framework"? Not many I'm guessing, but I think they are smart enough to look at the evidence on BOTH sides for themselves and to come out w/ a decision. Like everyone (i think) else here, we want MORE evolution to be taught, but along side that why not give some of the criticisms? If they receive all the info and they are still Darwinists that is one thing, but to say that it is illegal to present it in the first place is another. Just like your claim that Christianity is not a a historically valid truth is way off the mark. In fact it is one of the reasons I am Christian ie extremely well preserved Biblical writings, archae0logical validation, yes inner revclation of not just me but millions through out the ages, and even nature itself (ID/Creation) makes it clearly 100% evident to me. But unlike many high schoolers w/ Darwinism and, perhaps you with Christianity, I have seen both sides of the story. I had my shares of doubts ie evolution [I went to Berkeley and was once a theistic evolutionist myself], supposed historical inaccuracies, hypocrisy, liberal theology (yuck ~ sorry my personal plug :p). I'm very thankful that I got exposed to both ends of the stick. Mind you I am equally opposed to shielding ppl from criticisms of ID and Christianity and keeping ppl from learning evolution b/c you really do learn a lot from them. Why not do this with Intelligent Design [and with Christianity :)]? If it really is that vacuous just teach it as is with no foundation and (try t0) blow it away.jpark320
September 29, 2006
September
09
Sep
29
29
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Why do I waste my time here? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 29, 2006
September
09
Sep
29
29
2006
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Darwinsm is dead.
Long live Neo-Darwinism!Mats
September 29, 2006
September
09
Sep
29
29
2006
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Darwinism is dead.John A. Davison
September 29, 2006
September
09
Sep
29
29
2006
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Linda Slater:
Well fair enough. But this is not a distinction that is made that often. Rather, it is actually quite easy for an observer to draw the conclusion that ID = anti-evolution. That’s why I would advocate some end-to-end framework that would explain how ID and evolutionary biology can co-exist. Just focusing on the specific ID hypotheses does not do this.
In asking this question, to me, at least, it becomes apparent that you're not that familiar with ID literature, and that of Wm. Dembski in particular. That's OK. You're new to the blog and I can't, nor do I think others, expect you to be familiar. We quite often make a distinction between evolution as evidenced by the fossil record, and evolution as a theory, or Darwinism. If you read Well's entire article at WorldNetDaily, he makes this very same distinction. As I've looked through this thread, you've made the point more than once that ID has the responsibility to replace Darwinism with a full-blown theory. The simple response to that is: why? It would be good to remember that there were preeminent biologists/taxonomists/paleontologists before the Origin of Species came along. Science was moving forward. In fact, without the 'leg work' that other scientists had done, Darwin would have been out of business. His Origins is filled with the work of many, many naturalists that went before him. Preeminent among those who preceded Darwin was Cuvier. Cuvier, from looking at just one fossil bone could tell you what kind of critter it was. With this in mind, why would anyone think that science would come to an end if we attribute design to biological forms. Let' also remember that science began in the West, in Catholic seminaries, guided by the words of Scripture. The cap and gown that graduates wear when fulfilling their degree requirements is derived, in fact, from the "choir robe" worn by the monks/friars in seminaries run by religious orders. I think there's also another way of looking at all of this. If you ask a Darwinist how the human brain came about, wouldn't he say it was through RM+NS? That's his answer. But having that answer he/she doesn't say, "Well, that's all figured out, I think I'll go do some gardening." So, if ID theorists propose that biology is best understood through design detection, why does this necesitate them throwing science to the one side? And there's this: one of the principle claims of ID theorists is that Darwinism is wrong. Well, Linda, what if it is? Doesn't that mean ID theorists have provided invaluable service to biological science? Darwinism is the prevailing paradigm. Doesn't the prevailing paradigm have the responsibility to demonstrate how it can explain what is seen? If it can't do that, then why keep it? If a detective has a theory as to who committed a murder--as intricate a theory as one can imagine--but then his principal target ends up with an air-tight alibi, doesn't he have to start from scratch rather than say, "Oh, but it was such a wonderfully elaborate theory!" Just some questions to muse.PaV
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
I must admit that I felt misled by Wells. Several years ago when I had never heard of ID, I was absolutely delighted to find a couple of books that refuted NDE without being religious. Wells presented himself as being nonreligious and as having accepted Darwinism through at least part of his college education and only changed his mind when henoticed that Haeckels' drawings, for example, were incorrect. If I had known of his true religious vocation, I would no doubt not have purchased his book, which I do think is actually an excellent book, but I was looking for people who did not have a preconceived bias. Carlos said, For it could turn out that ID is true but that science could never find this out. An unlikely and excessively dreary thought.avocationist
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Darwinism was doomed in 1871 when St George Jackson Mivart asked a simple question. How can natural selection be involved in a structure that has not yet appeared? That question has not been answered because it cannot be answered by the Darwinian paradigm. It was finally given meaning in 1922 by Leo Berg - "Evolution is in a large measure an unfolding of re-existing rudiments." Nomogenesis, page 406 I only wish Berg had used the past tense. "Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed" Thomas Henry Huxley That is the sole frontispiece to Nomogenesis. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Todd wrote: This is why Linda’s above criticism falls flat - IDist aren’t erasing all of palentology, evolutionary biology or cosmology by challenging an inference deduced from a philosophic starting point. Indeed, we are saying observation and experience doesn’t fit with the materialist axioms at the root of darwinism and should be discarded for the better explanation: intelligent design. Well fair enough. But this is not a distinction that is made that often. Rather, it is actually quite easy for an observer to draw the conclusion that ID = anti-evolution. That's why I would advocate some end-to-end framework that would explain how ID and evolutionary biology can co-exist. Just focusing on the specific ID hypotheses does not do this. Jpark320 wrote: I do have a framework, [and I’m not being sarcastic here] its called Christianity...Like it or not, you gotta admit I did give you framework [Crazy thing is that its the Truth ] . Well, as somebody pointed out you are indeed being honest. But if you are being serious then I think it shouldn't be hard to understand why people would object to this framework being taught in a science class. As to Christianity being Truth I assume you mean that in a personal-revelation sense, not objective, verifiable, historical truth, because there is more than reasonable doubt to suppose that it isn't.Linda Slater
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Joseph wrote (#46):
The point being that until we have that knowledge- what makes an organism what it is- any thoughts on common descent from some population(s) of single-celled organisms is mere speculation. Heck the data we do have demonstrates that bacteria always remain bacteria. And the best we can get from single-celled organisms are colonies- IOW no evolution.
Well, all we have are individual humans. How do we get families? Or all we have are individual families. How do we get societies? The error's in the metaphysixs, assuming things to exist, because we systematize them to exist. have a nice day1 - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
There seem to be a lot of people that think that a Darwinian perspective somehow blinds scientists to certain strains of thought. Any inquiry into the breadth of research underway would quickly dispell such a notion. About the only thing that science is not considering is magic. We are interested in how things work. The "why" is for the philosophers and priests. Whether a system was intelligently or unintelligently designed is irrelevant to the study of its mechanisms and organization. That is unless we believe we are capable of comprehending the designer's design and making future predictions based solely on our understanding of God's design. Such arrogance, apart from being extraordinarily foolhardy, would be the best display of megalomania I could imagine.jmcd
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Reading through this this morning there was the urge to respond—though I’ve also got work to do—and then there was Scordova 37, 41, 42—excellent! as also some of the rest of y’all—all said so far better than I with much effort and time ever could. There’s the old adage, “Physics is what physicists do.” The notion that there is some neat algorithm or procedure called “science” is absurd. What is this obsession with “science”—we used to call it “physics envy” in our nonphysics department at the U. “Science”, which used to refer to the pursuit of knowledge, now means the pursuit of politically correct “public” knowledge, government funding, prestige and power. Therefore the obsession with defining others outside the circle—namely the opposing side in the Culture War—and the kindness of some to throw the other side a bone of subjective “truth” (Phillip Johnson, and Nancy Pearcey’s “Total Truth”, are good here). Yes, there are levels to it all, with philosophy/theology/mathematics and necessary truths at one end and facts and empirical procedures at the other, but it’s a continuum with no clear boundary. And yes, we can disagree, especially at the higher end, where some, as noted, see Christ and others will perceive Hashem in the Torah and still others other deities and/or nondeities—we’ve got to grant one another this liberty or we’re right back where we were when our ancestors fled the Old World.Rude
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
It appears a comment is snagged....Michaels7
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
There seems to be a fallacy in that a "failing/ failed" theory needs a replacement before it can be abandoned. Unbelievable. There is also a fallacy that the MET/ ToE is based on science. Yet we don't even know what makes an organism what it is beyond the following: What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
The point being that until we have that knowledge- what makes an organism what it is- any thoughts on common descent from some population(s) of single-celled organisms is mere speculation. Heck the data we do have demonstrates that bacteria always remain bacteria. And the best we can get from single-celled organisms are colonies- IOW no evolution. IOW when are the evolutionists going to take THEIR claims into a lab to substantiate them? It will NEVER happen. Therefore asking IDists to do that- what will they do, design a bac flag- would that "prove" ID?- is nothing but a double-standard.Joseph
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Why can't a future thought experiment be utilized to draw some conclusions for the future of a neo-Darwinian paradigm? I proposed this a couple of times now, once to Carl, and again as an open question, but no one responded. If it is not a legitimate exercise, please just say so and a brief explanation if someone does not mind. The exercise is in a form of a three part question which to me sheds insight on Darwinist limits and in fact appears to mark it as doomed, at least from the pragmatic purpose of future engineering life sciences in genetics and molecular biology. 1) How will scientist modify and/or create new life forms in the future? 2) Will it be totally random generation or by design? 3) Will either of these need known laws to facilitate life creation or sustainability? This does not facilitate past historical judgements, only future. So, evolution could have happened once, as Dr. Davison's Prescribed theory states and as FrontLoaders like. Or it could be Darwinian. But I think any future thought derails future RM/NS evolution theory since we are intelligent agents active in our surrounding environment and any future planning for modification of living organisms. The analogy would be Genesis or TerraForming another planet in the future. We would obviously come loaded with life forms that unveil themselves guided by environmental pressures, diet, etc., and utilizing existing physical laws of the universe. Does this kind of prophetic exercise doom NDE at least from an intelligent agency creation stand point of the future? And now that I think about it, how could we ever fully randomize life as a Genesis mechanism? It just seems completely absurd. And I do not mean that with contempt or sarcasm.Michaels7
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
The above should've ended: ... we are saying observation and experience don’t fit with the materialist axioms at the root of darwinism, which should be discarded for the better explanation: intelligent design.todd
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Carlos Which in turn raises the question as to whether or not we have access to truth through means other than science
Is this really a question? Are things only true if we quantify them? Infrared waves were true before we could detect them. So was gravity. It seems to me many (especially in Darwin's camp) fail to realize the limits of science. To believe science will ultimately provide answers to all or most of life's mysteries is FAITH!! As Sal points out above, no person is immune from ultimate premises of knowledge which "cannot be justified by any appeal to empiricism or science". This is why Linda's above criticism falls flat - IDist aren't erasing all of palentology, evolutionary biology or cosmology by challenging an inference deduced from a philosophic starting point. Indeed, we are saying observation and experience doesn't fit with the materialist axioms at the root of darwinism and should be discarded for the better explanation: intelligent design.todd
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
I say Bergian evolution is the answer. Let's hear it for Bergian evolution. Hip, hip, hooray! I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 28, 2006
September
09
Sep
28
28
2006
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
As Laudan has argued, the question whether a theory is scientific is really a red herring. What we want to know is not whether a theory is scientific but whether a theory is true or false, well confirmed or not, worthy of our belief or not. One can not decide the truth of a theory or the warrant for believing a theory to be true by applying a set of abstract criteria that purport to tell in advance how all good scientific theories are constructed or what they will in general look like. Stephen Meyer
Going back to the point of this thread, I would argue Darwinism is in the unique position of failing almost every formulation of what a scientific theory should be except the formulations that take Darwinism as its most fundamental axiom.scordova
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Which in turn raises the question as to whether or not we have access to truth through means other than science. For it could turn out, as I read 37, that ID is true but that science could never find this out.
If my definition of scinece does not concur with another's, my critics could readily accuse me of having access to something outside the bounds of science. In such case, it would be distraction for me to try to defend whether my personal epistemology is classified as science. I frankly don't care that much about such excercises in labeling. It matters more to me whether ID is true than whether my personal epistemology can be categorized as scientific. At some point each person's epistemological assumptions are axiomatic and cannot be justified by any appeal to empiricism or science. At a personal level, one can only follow one's conscience in regards to what one concludes is true. Arguing over labels is only a distraction to the real questions.....scordova
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology:
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
I must say I think more highly of this sort of commitment than I do lukewarm belief. Amusingly, I first learned about telos and teleology thirty years ago, when I encountered the question "Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?" in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. I have thought so often, watching the ID teleologists in action, that they have answered the question in the affirmative.Tom English
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply