Civil Discourse Not Tolerated by Darwinist
| November 4, 2009 | Posted by Clive Hayden under Culture, Darwinism, Evolution |
Jason Rosenhouse has written a blog about Michael Ruse and William Dembski. His complaint against Ruse, among other things, is that Ruse is too cordial, too civil with ID supporters, Dembski especially.
And while I may dislike and disagree with Ruse’s thinking, it is his actions over the last several years that I loathe and detest. I hate the way he has been doing everything in his power to prop up the ID folks. I hate that he persuaded a presitgious university press to publish a book co-edited by William Dembski, which featured four essays defending “Darwinism” that seemed tailor made to make evolution look bad. I hate that he contributes essays to anthologies designed to celebrate ID promoters and that he tells debate audiences that Dembski has made valuable contributions to science. Go here for relevant links and further details.
Rosenhouse hates quite a lot. What Rosenhouse also finds intolerable is that Ruse would even entertain the idea that an atheist Darwinist like Ruse gives any credence whatsoever to the proposition that religion is not the world’s greatest evil:
Michael Ruse has a very bad op-ed in The Guardian. Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers have already laid into him (here and here respectively), but why should they have all the fun? Ruse writes:
If you mean someone who agrees that logically there could be a god, but who doesn’t think that the logical possibility is terribly likely, or at least not something that should keep us awake at night, then I guess a lot of us are atheists. But there is certainly a split, a schism, in our ranks. I am not whining (in fact I am rather proud) when I point out that a rather loud group of my fellow atheists, generally today known as the “new atheists”, loathe and detest my thinking.
Amateur hour.
If the new atheists (folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) are making the party line, Rosenhouse is just towing it like a pack mule. But be forewarned, all you young lurkers, because Rosenhouse can’t tolerate nine year old’s either:
A while back I was a counselor at a summer camp, keeping an eye on a group of rowdy nine year olds. One of the kids was taunted relentlessly by the others for his incessant whining. He did not help his cause by answering such taunts with, “I don’t whine!” said in a pathetically whiny tone of voice.
If you have to tell people you are not whining, you’re whining.
Rosenhouse would, not doubt, maintain that he himself is not whining.
Ruse writes:
Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, “What caused God?” as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.
Indeed, it is an uneducated question that Ruse is right to point out. It is based on the assumption that everything, even supernatural things, need a first cause. Natural things do need a first cause, but I don’t see how we could logically apply natural rules to supernatural things. Yet Dawkins is so steeped in materialism, that I presume he smuggles in material necessities, such as the necessary first cause argument, even when thinking about the immaterial and supernatural. I appreciate that Ruse is trying to understand the argument, while the new atheists and Rosenhouse don’t seem to be, or maybe they are just too dense to understand, or too lost to care, or both.
The rest of his blog is much of the same kind of argument. I would say it’s childish, but that would be an offense to children, for children, in their innocence, have more of a sense of fairness and respect for their fellows than Rosenhouse has. Praise for Michael Ruse for having intellectual integrity instead of a rabid dog in the fight. The response that Rosenhouse has is, I suspect, the result of a poor education.
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
~C.S. Lewis
Although, I have to admit, Rosenhouse is not even clever.
103 Responses to Civil Discourse Not Tolerated by Darwinist
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As Upright Biped seems unable to post anything with actual content, I will henceforth not respond to her/his posts.
Allen_MacNeill @ 4
Clive has already trounced this, but I want to address it in terms you can understand.
It doesn’t matter if 20%, 50%, or 99% of evolutionary biologists are Albert Schweitzers – if the leaders are a bunch of rude jerks who prove the man-decended-from-poo-flinging-apes hypothesis every time they write or speak, then the anecdote in question is quite applicable.
Just like when you find the vast majority of the leadership of a movement are Nazi sympathyzers, former KKK members, Stalinists, Scientologists, John Birchers, or David Icke Lizard People Society members.
While Clive might not say this, I would say that most Darwinists who participate in the public policy debates on the subject have shown themselves to be against civil discourse on the topic.
The point is (a) there is a public debate on this, whether or not there is a debate within evolutionary biology, (b) the public is not overwhelmingly convinced, even if the evolutionary biologists are, (c) the Darwinists involved don’t care for a civil discussion on the matter, and instead would rather remove public and civil discourse altogether in favor for a one-sided discourse, or a discourse in which the possible sides are dictated by them.
Often it is said, “shouldn’t science policy be left to the scientists?” To this I would answer, “should we leave education (and other public interactions) of religion to theologians?” The answer in both cases is no. It is a public policy, and the public has every right to be a part of the conversation.
Allen MacNeil says: “As Upright Biped seems unable to post anything with actual content, I will henceforth not respond to her/his posts.”
On the contrary, my posts at 17 and 32 were quite laden with content, as anyone who followed along can see for themselves.
And given that my posts were actual documentation of you being belligerent, petty, and non responsive to well-presented challenges, you’ll have to forgive me for being unmoved by your decision to continue not responding.
—-Clive Hayden: “What I find amusing about the whole affair is that, by the methodology of explaining all of human existence via evolution, i.e. the brain and all of our mental capacities, that arguments are made against others as if they weren’t just as much the product of evolutionary capacities and outcomes. All thoughts are the “emergence” of a mental pattern which couldn’t have been otherwise by our neurological makeup being developed from the ground up by evolutionary processes. If anyone doesn’t see the self-referential incoherence here, it can only be because you evolved not to see it.”
Well, said Clive. I do wonder why Darwinists, who believe that your moderating policy can be explained solely by evolutionary processes over which you have no control, should hold you accoutable for it. How exactly does that work?
StephenB,
Thanks StephenB. It doesn’t work, it’s inconsistent. When someone undercuts the traditional mind/body distinction, as I know you’re aware, then they subject their mind to their body, and the same would hold true for everyone if it was true for anyone. This is the fatal flaw in the argument, that any discussion about the evolution of the whole person (and it can only be explained via full-on evolution, or ID, there is no logical or consistent in-between), ultimately ends with the evolution of the brain producing what we think is called the mind, all of it, even the part that tells us that we evolved. And if someone believes this, it is only because they evolved to believe it, and anyone who doesn’t evolved not to, so there is no hope of an objective ability of knowledge that exists outside of the whole evolving show, given that the mind emerges from the matter, and the matter is fully an account of the material arranged by evolution. And anyone that cannot logically see the self-referential incoherence in their position, are themselves evolved not to see it, because we’re no longer talking about truth in the old sense of being separate and apart from nature and having a vantage point at which to objectively study and know nature, we have made ourselves subject to nature; and whatever we know now comes from nature. You know all this, this is really for the lurkers.
Allen MacNeill
Why waste your time posting here at all? You do not seem to have a receptive audience.
Zach,
Receptivity?
Your comment would carry more weight except that Mr MacNeil dodges important issues when they are presented to him. By the word “dodge” I include both his track record of willfully ignoring direct questions, as well as his tendency to flank difficult questions by repeatedly answering those that are not asked.
Interesting; apparently civil discourse is not tolerated by the moderator(s) of this website either. Zach Bailey asked in comment #39,
I posted a response over 24 hours ago, which was held in moderation until early this morning, when it “mysteriously” disappeared completely. I have posted the entire text of my response here:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot......t-and.html
but no longer expect any of my comments to appear here. If this one does, please read the comment I have posted above, and ask yourself the following two questions:
1) was my response to Zach Bailey in anyway “intolerant” or “uncivil”?
2) if your answer to question #1 is “no”, then why was my response to Zack Bailey deleted?
This comment (which should be #41) was posted on Sunday 8 November 2009 at 11:47 EST.
Allen_MacNeill,
You know very well why some of your comments are admitted and some not, as evidenced by the fact that you know how to edit the ones I haven’t allowed to make them less offensive and less of an ad hominem and more of an argument. If you didn’t know, what to edit, and you’re editing is by chance, then I might believe in evolution and not make a design inference.
Allen MacNeil,
On your blog you spoke of this thread. You said:
“Other people ask me why I generally treat creationists and ID supporters with respect, rather than taking every opportunity to heap scorn and ridicule upon them.”
And then you go on to say:
“Indeed, some commentator’s comments are so insulting that I refuse to respond to them, and I believe that this does not pass unnoticed by readers who are not yet irrationally committed to one side or the other.”
- – - – - –
A couple of points on your first comment: You do not respect your opponents, unless of course you think that 1) ignoring their questions, or 2) misrepresenting their arguments, or 3) high-tailing it when the questions get tough is a measure of respect.
For many of us, such actions are not a measure of respect, but are instead the very obvious indications of political maneuver. The fact that you are a highly trained and intelligent man, and yet you still have to resort to such actions (in the name of science) is quite an eye-opener. It is, no doubt, directly related to the weakness of your position.
After all, what else could it be related to? Does anyone think these actions by you are a typical part of your daily demeanor? I don’t, and I doubt others do.
No, it is this conversation itself that forces these actions upon you. It does it to you and to every other person who is faced with these questions from your personal metaphysic perspective.
- – - – - -
As for your second comment about being insulted. I can assume you had me in mind for this comment given that it is I that you’ve called out to be ignored.
Obviously, all of this falls into place behind the fact that you left a conversation when a most polite request was made of you to answer a simple but important question. No one can read the text from that thread (copied above in #17) and reasonably think for a moment that anyone was being abusive to you. Neither Timaeus (asking the question) nor myself (asking you to return to the thread) said anything insulting to you in any way whatsoever.
Of course, you do not want any onlookers to concern themselves with that thread, instead you would like to focus on the change in tone of my comments to you after you walked out on what was an utterly polite conversation – a conversation with difficult implications for your position.
So lets add it up: a person who sets himself up as an authority, who is disrespectful to his opponent’s arguments, who refuses to answer questions asked of him in the most polite manner possible, then returns to continue his condescending ways as if he is still a credible authority. And to cap it all off, he feigns being insulted if anyone brings it up.
Who could have a problem with that?
This is a blog that promotes intelligent design. But often that seems to involve people expressing scepticism of evolutionary theory. Mr MacNeill is a very experienced teacher of biology who is able (and much more importantly, willing – for which you should be grateful IMHO) to spend some time here correcting misconceptions about evolutionary theory. There are a considerable number of Mr MacNeill’s peers who do not think ID is worthy of such consideration.
Zach,
“This is a blog that promotes intelligent design. But often that seems to involve people expressing scepticism of evolutionary theory.”
This blog does promote intelligent design, and the manifest issue is that ideologues use the obvious and almost trivial reality of evolution (meaning change over time) as a pathway to promote a great number of ideas that are in no way supported by empirical evidence.
What is at debate in regards to evolution are the mechanisms of that change, and from a larger perspective, the origin of life to begin with. If this is not something you were aware of, and quite apparently it is not, then I would only suggest you make UD your homepage and read critically of all posts.
- – - – - –
“Mr MacNeill is a very experienced teacher of biology who is able (and much more importantly, willing – for which you should be grateful IMHO) to spend some time here correcting misconceptions about evolutionary theory.”
Mr MacNeil’s qualifications are not at issue. What is at issue is the observable evidence of an act of volition leading to the presence of life on this planet.
Secondarily, I posted comments from a previous thread where an ID supporter of Mr. MacNeil’s intellectual training politely asked him to defend the falsifiability of evolutionary theory as commonly practiced by materialists within the academy. Clearly Mr. MacNeil ran for cover (and stayed there despite repeated requests for him to rejoin). Is this the treatment you suggest we should be grateful for? If so, then please explain why we should be grateful for it.
Thirdly, you seem to be operating from the idea that people who are sympathetic to ID are therefore uninformed about evolutionary theory. It’s is a ridiculous assumption that doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. You should consider dropping it.
- – - – - – -
“There are a considerable number of Mr. MacNeil’s peers who do not think ID is worthy of such consideration.”
I am going to assume you recognize this to be an argument from consensus (which has nothing whatsoever to do with science) or even worse, and argument from authority (whom are not even named). In either case, you can’t be serious.
Zach Bailey:
It has been alleged that I “ran for cover” when asked a question by a commentator posting under the name “Timaeus”. While it is true that I did not immediately post a detailed response to Timaeus’ query, I did so in this very thread in comment #19. You may read my response to Timaeus question there and then judge for yourself if the allegation is therefore valid, and (by extension) who is honestly attempting to respond to a request for information and who is misrepresenting the facts.
You may also judge for yourself whether the responses to my answers to Timaeus’ query contained substantive rejoinders supported by citations, or whether they constituted ad hominem attacks without any genuine content.
I am ready to respond to any question or request for further clarification, so long as it is offered in the same spirit of civility and respect with which I have always attempted to respond. However, as I have stated on multiple occasions, I will not respond to ad hominem attacks, character assassination, insults, or ridicule.
…and, just in case you missed it, my name is not “Skippy”, nor do I post under a pseudonym.
Allen,
“It has been alleged that I “ran for cover” when asked a question by a commentator posting under the name “Timaeus”. While it is true that I did not immediately post a detailed response to Timaeus’ query, I did so in this very thread in comment #19. You may read my response to Timaeus question there and then judge for yourself if the allegation is therefore valid, and (by extension) who is honestly attempting to respond to a request for information and who is misrepresenting the facts.”
You gave a response (as it were) to Timaeus on November 5th. The question Timaeus posed to you was posted on February 19th. These are recorded facts accessible by a simple search of the archives. This was followed for weeks by (at least) me politely asking you to return to the conversation, as well as indications from Timaeus that he would like you to return. That was then followed by months of me (having given up asking you to address the questions) occasionally bringing up the incident on other threads that you traveled.
So…the allegation is that you left the conversation and failed to return even under repeated requests. Is it valid? Yes, demonstrably so.
And if you now want to step off the precipice and make the suggestion that you were “honestly attempting to respond to a request for information” and implying that others are “misrepresenting the facts” then the previous allegation can immediately be extended to include deception on you part as well.
And would that allegation be valid as well? Yes, and also demonstrably so.
- – - – - – -
“You may also judge for yourself whether the responses to my answers to Timaeus’ query contained substantive rejoinders supported by citations, or whether they constituted ad hominem attacks without any genuine content.”
Your belated response to Timaeus was a reprise of the evidence for microevolution, followed by an assertion of your personal certainty. It wasn’t even close to answering the question asked.
Secondarily, no one suggested that you responded to Timaeus with ad hominem comments, only that you did not respond at all.
- – - – - – -
It should be remembered that the issue raised by Timaeus was/is critical to the strategic cover of materialists who abuse the institution of science in order to import unsupported conclusions into the output of the institution.
There is little doubt as to why the question is so well defended – even to the point of pretending archived facts are not obvious to anyone who reads them.
Actually, you are quite wrong: I do not know how to edit comments once they are submitted, and didn’t know it was possible.
Allen, I think he means you resubmit the comments with changes.
tribune7,
That is precisely what I meant and that is precisely what Allen does. I can give you examples. The comments I don’t approve from him are not deleted, so I can do a comparison from those and the same comments resubmitted with the changes. Allen knows this, and I suspect that sometimes his disdain for ID just gets the better of him.
I see now that mis-read your second comment. I apologize.
Your response suggests that the evidence for microevolution (which is not under debate) can create “two or more reproductively isolated populations”.
Apparently you want simply to assume that this is all that is needed to confirm macroevolution. This is woefully inadequate, and doesn’t even touch the original question.
This is what I meant when I typed:
“you failed to actually answer the question. Instead you carpet-bombed the issue and simply reasserted your belief”
and
“By the word “dodge” I include both his track record of willfully ignoring direct questions, as well as his tendency to flank difficult questions by repeatedly answering those that are not asked.”
and
“Your belated response to Timaeus was a reprise of the evidence for microevolution, followed by an assertion of your personal certainty. It wasn’t even close to answering the question asked.”
For the edification of anyone following this thread, the question asked on Feb 19th of Allen MacNeil, which he ignored until Nov 5th is the following:
Timaeus” What experiment could unambiguously eliminate the Darwinian hypothesis (macroevolution caused by mutations plus natural selection etc.)? If one hypothetical evolutionary pathway from land mammals to whales is falsified, the Darwinists just come up with another one. And they hang on to that one until fossil evidence or genetic evidence or radioactive dating evidence or whatnot makes that one impossible. Then they come up with another one. A while ago it was a hippo-like animal that was the supposed ancestor of the whale; now it’s a wolf-like one. Five years from now it may be a rodent-like one. Never do Darwinists entertain for a moment the possibility that whales *could not* have evolved by entirely naturalistic means from land mammals. For to entertain that possibility would mean to entertain the possibility that whales may have been specially engineered, and that conclusion, even if it is derived entirely from biological data and not at all from any religious teaching, the Darwinists will simply not allow.
Or am I wrong? Can you give me an example of a “killer observation” or “killer experiment” that would falsify Darwinism completely? And please don’t use “the Cambrian rabbit ploy”. That tired old Cambrian rabbit, whose ears are getting sore from being pulled out of the hat so many times by Darwinists, would indeed falsify common descent. But many ID proponents accept common descent, e.g., Behe, Denton, and they do not expect to find a Cambrian rabbit. Common descent is not the point in debate between ID proper and Darwinism. The issue is, within the working assumption of common descent, what would falsify the Darwinian hypothesis once and for all? What would force a Darwinian to admit that evolution could not have been entirely unguided? I have asked this question over and over again, and never have I spoken to or read a Darwinist who has an answer for it. And being somewhat of a Popperian in philosophy of science (unfashionable, I know, but I was never much for fashion), I would argue that any hypothesis for which this question cannot be answered is not really a scientific hypothesis, but a vague, airy speculation. So, is Darwinian evolution a falsifiable hypothesis, or not? If so, how could it be falsified? If not, why should it be regarded as science?
Clive, and since the meat of the comments is presumably not changed, nobody can accuse of unwarranted censorship i.e. leaving out effective rebuttals.
tribune7,
That’s very true.
When I consider Timaeus’ question and the track record of Darwinists, I doubt there will be a satisfying answer. Perhaps that was the point of asking it.
On a side note, I think Upright BiPed is my favorite poster
Bereceuse,
Thank you kindly, but any clarity as to the actual falsifiability of the Darwinian hypothesis that comes about by this exchange was not provided by me, but by Allen MacNeil.
Again, thanks.
I don’t have time right now to respond to every comment (I’m very busy grading research papers, preparing final exams, and working on my book and video projects, not to mention being an attentive husband and father), but here’s a very specific response to one of Timaeus’ questions:
What empirical evidence would verify (i.e. support) or falsify (i.e. undermine) the hypothesis that whales have evolved from a land-dwelling ancestor?
Please note that this is a hypothesis about macroevolution, not microevolution.
A basic principle of hypothesis validation in the natural sciences is that if one can find multiple lines of evidence, all of which support the hypothesis, then such evidence is much stronger than if there were only a single line of evidence. This is especially the case if the different lines of evidence come from very widely separated fields.
Until recently the main line of evidence for the evolution of whales (i.e. members of the mammalian order Cetacea) from even-toed ungulates (i.e. members of the mammalian order Artiodactyla) was anatomical. This anatomical evidence was derived from two sources:
1) similarities between the anatomy (especially skeletal anatomy) of living (i.e. “extant”) Artiodactyls and Cetacea, and
2) an evolutionary phylogeny of the transition from terrestrial Artiodactyls to aquatic Cetacea, based on fossils.
Rather than summarize this comparative anatomical evidence here, I recommend that interested readers follow this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E....._cetaceans
What you will find is a fairly detailed summary of the evidence from comparative anatomy, all of it pointing to the conclusion that whales (i.e. Cetaceans) evolved from even-toed ungulates (i.e. Artiodactyls). It is this evidence that most evolutionary biologists have until recently cited as support for the macroevolutionary derivation of Cetaceans from Artiodactyl ancestors.
However, one can also ask the question Does a comparison of the genomics of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans support the same hypothesis? That is, are there observable similarities and differences in DNA sequences that are similar in both scope and timing to the similarities and differences in the fossil record (and as reflected in the comparative anatomy of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans)?
This is an easily falsified hypothesis: If the genomic evidence does not support the Artiodactyl into Cetacean hypothesis — e.g. the comparative genomic evidence supported the hypothesis that Cetaceans had evolved from some other clade, or that they had not evolved at all, but rather sprang into existence fully-formed and without genetic evidence of a macroevolutionary transition — then this evidence would not support the evidence from comparative anatomy and the macroevolutionary hypothesis based on comparative anatomy would be falsified.
So, what does the comparative genomic evidence indicate about the macroevolutionary relationships between the Artiodactyla and the Cetacea? Here’s a summary of the most recent findings from comparative genomics:
Note that much of the genomic data (especially from transposon sequences) supporting the macroevolutionary hypothesis is based on non-adaptive DNA sequences. That is, the transposon DNA sequences do not code for adaptive characteristics, and in many cases that do not code for anything at all.
This is like figuring out which students have been copying the answers to test questions from other students by comparing their wrong answers. The right answers are the same for everybody, but wrong answers vary from student to student in virtually random ways. If two students have the same wrong answers, you can be reasonably confident that one of them copied the wrong answers from the other. You can then test this hypothesis by looking at seating charts, past test performance (cheaters are often identified by sudden increases in test scores without apparent increases in effort), and – often the last resort – asking them directly if they copied answers.
Conclusion: The empirical evidence from comparative genomics closely matches the empirical evidence from (both extant and fossil) comparative anatomy
Is that all, or is there yet another line of evidence that might be pursued to verify or falsify the Artiodactyl into Cetacean hypothesis? Yes, there is. Consider the observable fact that whales reproduce much more slowly than even-toed ungulates, such as deer and hippos. Indeed, there is a general principle in zoology that the larger the members of a species are (on the average) the fewer offspring they have, the more widely spaced those offspring are in time, the fewer offspring they can have over their lifetime, and the longer the average lifespan of individuals.
For example, deer can have offspring every year, and under good conditions can sometimes have twins or even triplets in one reproductive cycle. By comparison, baleen whales can only have offspring every few years (it can take up to two years for one pregnancy in large baleen whales), they virtually never have more than one calf at a time, they have only a few reproductive life cycles per lifetime, and they have much longer lifespans than deer.
This means that, if Cetaceans evolved from Artiodactyls, one might be able to find empirical evidence that the rate of the macroevolutionary transition from Artiodactyl ancestors into Cetacean descendants had slowed down as the result of the increase in size, decrease in number of offspring per reproductive cycle, decrease in total number of offspring per lifetime, and increase in average lifespan. In brief, there might be evidence that the macroevolutionary “clock” slowed down as Cetaceans evolved larger and larger size.
Here’s the latest genomic evidence vis-a-vis this hypothesis:
(Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19648466 )
So, in response to Timaeus’ query, there are indeed empirically falsifiable hypotheses for the macroevolution of whales from land-dwelling ancestors. If whales (Cetacea) evolved from even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla), then the following predictions should be supported by the observable data:
• that there would be anatomical similarities between extant Artiodactyls and Cetaceans,
• that there would also be anatomical similarities between fossil Artiodactyls and Cetaceans,
• that there would be shared similarities and differences between the genomes of extant clades of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans, and that the overwhelming majority of these similarities and differences would mirror the comparative anatomical evidence for the macroevolutionary origin of the various clades of the Cetartiodactyla, and
• that the inferred slowing of macroevolutionary change during the transition from Artiodactyl ancestors to Cetacean descendants would also be consistent with the hypothesis that the rate of this transition would have slowed as the result of increasing body size, increasing reproductive spacing, decreasing numbers of offspring per life cycle, and increasing longevity.
And they were.
Clearly, an ID supporter might then ask for specific empirical evidence on how the various transitions occurred at the genetic and developmental level, and if these details could unambiguously distinguish between natural and supernatural causes for such genetic mechanisms. Evolutionary developmental biologists are currently working on answers to the first part, but I personally cannot imagine how one could empirically test the second part. Furthermore, it seems to me that invoking a supernatural cause for the macroevolutionary transition from Artiodactyls to Cetaceans would be unnecessary, and would add nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the mechanisms by which this transition occurred.
Ergo, if I were doing this research and publishing my results I wouldn’t mention it, as it would be completely unnecessary for a scientific explanation of this phenomenon.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, how might one use any of the foregoing as positive or negative empirical evidence for the existence of God? I ask because some evolutionary biologists believe they can use the data of evolutionary biology to disprove the existence of God, and some ID supporters believe they can use the data of evolutionary biology to prove the existence of God. Personally, I believe both attempts are misguided. pointless, and ultimately futile. That’s why I don’t make such attempts, and wonder why anyone would.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, how might one use any of the foregoing as positive or negative empirical evidence for the existence of God?
Allen, if God is outside of nature then the means used to understand nature can’t be applied to God.
Something puzzled me in your post 19.
With regard to falsifying NDE you said that all that would be required would be to show that one of the prerequisites and you said variation as one those asking “Variation: Is there sufficient genetic and phenotypic variation to allow for the production of all of the variants observed in nature?”
You then provide a link in which you note the many ways genomic change can occur as evidence of sufficient variation.
Isn’t that ducking the point?
That there are many means of producing genomic change does not explain why there are many different, and successful, genomes.
How can these engines of variation accomplish this without plans?
Upright Biped asks:
Because I am assuming that you would prefer not to be ignored, as the vast majority of working scientists appear to be doing with intelligent design. I agree it is a difficulty and somewhat of a dilemma.
But perhaps if an idea is hard to promote there is not only the possibility that the scientific world at large is conspiring against it. There is also the possibility that the idea is wrong or, worse, not useful.
Allen,
I’ll give you points for trying.
Timaeus asked a very straightforward question. He asked it of you months ago. The gist of the question is not hard to follow. This is because he was thorough in adding the context necessary for understanding by any person even remotely familiar with the issues at hand. In fact, the only reasons someone might not answer the actual question is because they a) have no familiarity with the issues, and/or b) must flank the question because they are unable to answer it directly, and/or c) cannot answer it. Of course, from the many ways someone might choose to flank the question, the most common is to change it to one that is not at issue (a move into uncontested territory). These are all common maneuvers, regardless of the topic. They are well understood, they are studied, and they are apparent.
Timaeus asked:
To this question (after nine months to think it over) you first responded with the idea that falsifying any of the factors involved in micro-evolution would somehow (hard to follow the logic here) falsify macro-evolution. Amongst all the qualifiers, you say:
This is, of course, a complete rewrite of the question. It’s a rewrite which evacuates the question of all its meaning. Your “rephrasing” makes the assumption that what is observed and what is not observed hold the same value position within the evidence, and moreover, it completely ignores the core of the issue. In the face of the question (Common descent is not the point in debate between ID proper and Darwinism. The issue is, within the working assumption of common descent, what would falsify the Darwinian hypothesis once and for all? What would force a Darwinian to admit that evolution could not have been entirely unguided?) your answer was nothing more than a cleverly-dressed change to a question that suits you.
Now, you’ve returned with a second attempt, but this time you’ll be less coy about the changing of the question. In fact you’ll blatantly change the question – as if it hardly matters.
In Timaeus’ original question to you, he expanded on the idea that Darwinists will often (as a way to ignore the question) take a comfortable stroll through the latest revision of their favorite assumptions. He specifically brought up the whale/land mammal assumption.
Somehow in your reading of his comment, you apparently (and incredibly so) saw this as a perfect opportunity to take a stroll with the whale story. The entirety of your second volley is based upon it – even though it was presented to you as an evasion of the issue and completely irrelevant. Like a Pavlovian biologist, the issue on the table is falsifiability of unguided evolution (you know, where your assumption is required to be tested against the possibility that it’s wrong) yet you keep reaching for comfortable confirmations that say nothing to the issue.
Where is the connectedness of your thinking? Are we now to believe that when it comes to the structure of scientific investigation you fail to know the difference between a hypothesis and its required falsifiability?
I don’t buy it.
Let’s be honest about it Allen. Grab yourself by the bootstraps. Give yourself a pep talk. You have no answer to the question because there is no answer to the question. You can come back with attempt number three, four, and five and they’ll all be the same. And I’ll be here to tear them down to their bones and prove it by your own words.
The hypothesis of unguided evolution is not falsifiable – not because of the institution of science, but because of the abuse of the institution.
You are among those that abuse it.
However, with a dose of independence, you are free to stop at any time. In either case, it is incumbent upon you as a thinking man (and an educator) to stop badgering those who are willing to explore the forgotten reality that the assumption, which you illegitimately defend from falsifiability, might be wrong after all.
Zach,
Thanks for your input. I’ll keep it in mind.
I would say though, being ignored by Allen prior to my comments, is not altogether that much different that being ignored by him prior to my comments.
Zach, feel free to insert the word “after” in either position of my last post. It’s all the same.
And by the way, judging by the monumental effort on the part of Science to squash the design inference as quickly and as thoroughly as possibly (umpteen books, websites, legal teams, and a national association with nothing else in mind) it would be somewaht near-sighted to conclude that science is “ignoring” it.
#60
Forgive me intruding here but I am sure Allen won’t mind.
Timeaus asked:
within the working assumption of common descent, what would falsify the Darwinian hypothesis once and for all? What would force a Darwinian to admit that evolution could not have been entirely unguided?
THis is not as straightforward as it appears – which is perhaps why Allen needed to rephrase it.
It’s two questions (count them).
1) The first is quite vague because “Darwinian hypothesis” can mean many things. Allen’s “rewrite” seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation (If not, then it is surely incumbent on Timeaus to explain what he did mean by Darwinian hypothesis). And it is obviously true, as Allen points out, that if the theory entails that macroevolution is the result of many instances of microevolution – then anything that falsifies microevolution also falsifies macroevolution.
2) It is possible that for Timeaus the Darwinian hypothesis is simply that the process of evolution is unguided i.e. that there is an unspecified natural process which does not involve intelligence. This is indeed very hard to falsify and would be quite unacceptable as a scientific hypothesis (just as bad as an unspecified process which does involve intelligence). But luckily this is not modern (or past) evolutionary theory.
But perhaps if an idea is hard to promote there is not only the possibility that the scientific world at large is conspiring against it. There is also the possibility that the idea is wrong or, worse, not useful.
Absolutely. The scientific community only involves itself in the practical. Like string theory and SETI.
Mark Frank,
No, I doubt Allen would mind you jumping in. What he really really needs now is some good ole’ fashioned obfuscation dressed up as a search for the clarity. ?
- – - – - – -
Allen was forced to rephrase the question in order to remove from himself the burden of its meaning. It had nothing whatsoever to do with clarifying what was being asked. He did so for the reasons I noted in #60.
- – - – - – - -
From a defensive position, I can appreciate you wanting to support Allen. You claim that the simple question asked by Timaeus was so completely incomprehensible that it actually was two questions in one.
You say:
You simply have to ignore the context given in the conversation to come to that conclusion. If you’ll take the time to read the passage between MacNeil and Timaues, you’ll see that he makes it abundantly clear what is being asked. Again, Mr. MacNeil was able to discern the meaning – as was evidenced by his need to ignore it for nine months; only to eviscerate it of its meaning went it resurfaced.
- – - – - – -
I am sure it does. However, Allen took the question:
“within the working assumption of common descent, what would falsify the Darwinian hypothesis once and for all? What would force a Darwinian to admit that evolution could not have been entirely unguided?”
and he returned with
“What empirical evidence would falsify the hypothesis that a combination of variation, inheritance, fecundity, and differential survival and reproduction can produce both microevolution and macroevolution?” (and then defined macroevolution as) the divergence of single panmictic population into two or more reproductively isolated populations.
A doorknob could tell the difference between these two questions. Please don’t suggest again that you can’t (because I won’t believe you, no matter how hard you try).
- – - – - – - – -
This entire word-babble is simply a continuation of the previous comment, which was nothing but obfuscation of the actual question at hand. But even at that, it is incomprehensibly trivial. “If microevolution is false, then so is macroevolution?
Who’s asking that? Nobody
- – - – - – - -
What’s with this “unspecified” crap? The natural process which does not involve intelligence has been specified for the past 150 years.
What is with this eternal need by Darwinian ideologues to constantly change what is being asked; to twist questions into either meaninglessness or unintelligibility? Where Mr. MacNeil is concerned to remove meaning from the question, you instead want to quickly add it back in. Both actions are (of course) done for the same reason. Just as I explained in my previous post #60.
- – - – - – - – -
Honestly Mark, do you not ever wince at the willful contortions necessary to avoid such obvious questions as the one given by Timaeus? I truly believe UD should start a talent show. Obfuscation as Performance Art. You and Whisker and Hunt can do a routine. Diffaxial can be your manager. Reciprocating Bill, Keiths, and Maya can be in your banned.
#65
Upright Biped
I am sorry but:
within the working assumption of common descent, what would falsify the Darwinian hypothesis once and for all? What would force a Darwinian to admit that evolution could not have been entirely unguided?
Is two different questions – count the question marks!
And “Darwinian hypothesis” can mean lots of things.
Even if it has only one specific meaning there is no harm in confirming that meaning is there? I think a very reasonable meaning is:
the hypothesis that a combination of variation, inheritance, fecundity, and differential survival and reproduction can produce both microevolution and macroevolution?
You say you won’t believe me if I say I can’t tell the difference. I am sorry because I really, really find the second to be a reasonable interpretation of the second. If I am wrong then just give your own interpretation.
“If microevolution is false, then so is macroevolution?
Who’s asking that? Nobody
Let me spell it out. The Darwinian hypothesis (according to the interpretation Allen offered) entails that macroevolution is the result of lots of instances of microevolution. Therefore, if microevolution is falsified then the Darwinian hypothesis is falsified.
>What’s with this “unspecified” crap? The natural process which does not involve intelligence has been specified for the past 150 years
The second question Timeaus asked was:
What would force a Darwinian to admit that evolution could not have been entirely unguided?
This does not say what unguided process is being used i.e. the process is not specified.
Honestly Mark, do you not ever wince at the willful contortions necessary to avoid such obvious questions as the one given by Timaeus?
This isn’t a contortion. It is an honest attempt to make an ambiguous pair of questions clearer. It is a standard technique when asked a question to repeat it back to the questioner in your own words to make sure you understand it.
Just noticed a typo in #66. The eight paragraph should read:
“You say you won’t believe me if I say I can’t tell the difference. I am sorry because I really, really find the second to be a reasonable interpretation of the first. If I am wrong then just give your own interpretation.”