Home » Evolution » A Crisis in Credibility?

A Crisis in Credibility?

Let me say very clearly here that I’m not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des_1.html

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to A Crisis in Credibility?

  1. Good call by Scott.

    Something is really wrong with this whole debate in its current state.

    Both sides are frequently trying to alter the claims of the other side so that they can be easily refuted using old techniques.

    The result? The arguments of today sound like the same arguments that were being made 50 years ago by both sides…even though both sides have completely different evidence now.

    ps..when i refer to the anti-evolution side…I am referring to all groups that refute evolution(religions and non-religious alike). Refuting evolution is not new, even if ID is, therefore ID can recycle a lot of arguments.

  2. I would say that arguments against Darwinism have advanced considerably with the discoveries of DNA and cellular machinery (and IC). 50 years ago, nobody was pointing to digitally coded information in the cell, because nobody knew it existed. Nor were scientists aware of the purposeful machinery in the cell. It would be accurate to say that, within the last 30 years or so, significant new discoveries have made it possible to deliver a rather devistating blow to the Darwinian narritive.

  3. Bombadill…I wasn’t referring to the evidence…I was referring to the actual debate

  4. What always surprises me is the venom, the vitriol, the opprobrium literally spewing from Darwinians. It is absolutely poisionous. Where does it come from?
    I say again, it comes from fear. These people are terrified of what? That maybe there IS a Designer and that He/She/It, if capable of Design, might also have claims on their lives that they have ignored?

  5. Red Reader wrote: “What always surprises me is the venom, the vitriol, the opprobrium literally spewing from Darwinians. It is absolutely poisionous. Where does it come from?
    I say again, it comes from fear. These people are terrified of what? That maybe there IS a Designer and that He/She/It, if capable of Design, might also have claims on their lives that they have ignored?”

    They also fear that they will lose their authority and prestige if the public’s skepticism about evolution is reinforced by scientific arguments.

  6. One thing to realize: Religion doesn’t “need” ID to be right – there’s nothing stopping God from building the universe using what at least looks like a ramdom Darwinian process (of course, it wouldn’t be truly random, but that gets into some heavy theology) But athiesm “needs” Darwin to be right. As they themselves admit, they can’t allow even the slightest hint of a designer to creep in, else their whole worldview dissapates. That’s what thy are so nasty on the subject. As Chesterton said, about supposed “proof” that miracles cannot happen:

    “But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. “

  7. I just watched Kenneth Miller on CSPAN at the AEI refuting two strawman ID arguments. The guy’s a Catholic, right? Doesn’t Catholicism have something to say about bearing false witness?

  8. Regarding a crisis of credibility… A few years ago I had a debate with an evolutionist Biochemist in my university after I showed the unlocking the mystery of life video (btw, he pointed out something that i had myself noted, which was that the video gave the impression that protein codes needed to be exact, when that is not the case)… What I took from that encounter was that I got him to admit infront of the audience that he favoured a priori materialism (hence MN and therefore the theory of evolution) because he hated the idea that God could exist… It was sweet to hear him say that in the open… But anyway… with people like this guy around (as there are obviously many) we cannot afford to let anyone else do the interpretation of raw data (which speaks clearly to design) for us on this massively important topic… Can the opinions/interpretions of such people, when they influence the very questions of meaning (in which they too have a vested interest), truely be credible? I think the opinions of experts should be considered with evidence, but nothing ever taken on blind faith…

  9. Russ

    “They also fear that they will lose their authority and prestige if the public’s skepticism about evolution is reinforced by scientific arguments.”

    I think you got the #1 reason Darwin apologists are so shrill. It’s a matter of face and the saving thereof. They’re obviously willing to abandon Darwinian theory bit by bit such that its death doesn’t fall entirely on the heads of a single generation of chance worshippers.

  10. “The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”

    Yeah, but the doctrine is exceedingly well grounded in experiment. Show me a miracle and I’ll believe in miracles. As to great numbers of witnesses to miracles I believe that via the modern miracle of television many millions of people witnessed David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.

Leave a Reply