Home » Intelligent Design » Suppose They Gave a Theory and Nobody Argued?

26 Responses to Suppose They Gave a Theory and Nobody Argued?

1. 1

   bornagain77March 5, 2013 at 4:34 am

   From the conclusion of Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty trilogy (The Political Order of a Free People):

   I believe men will look back on our age as an age of superstition, chiefly connected with the names of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. I believe people will discover that the most widely held ideas which dominated the twentieth century, those of a planned economy with a just distribution, a freeing ourselves from repression and conventional morals, of permissive education as a way to freedom, and the replacement of the market by a rational arrangement of a body with coercive powers, were all based on superstitions in the strict sense of the word. An age of superstition is a time when people imagine that they know more than they do. In this sense, the twentieth century was certainly an outstanding century of superstition, and the cause of this is an overestimation of what science has achieved… (University of Chicago Press, 1979; pp. 175–176)

   Of course, Charles Darwin’s name should have appeared here as well. We may therefore supplement this quote with one from Hayek’s contemporary, Malcolm Muggeridge (from The End of Christendom):

   I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.

   http://designinference.com/quo.....ich-hayek/
2. 2

   JoeMarch 5, 2013 at 5:29 am

   What “theory” of evolution?
3. 3

   Eric AndersonMarch 5, 2013 at 9:36 am

   Philip Johnson argued that Marx, Freud and Darwin were three of the most influential makers of the “modern mindset.” All three theories were peddled as grounded in science, and all three ultimately ended up being philosophy, masquerading as science . . .
4. 4

   jstanley01March 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm

   From Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, Chapter 12, “Science and Pseudoscience”:
   

   Karl Popper provides the indispensable starting point for understanding the difference between science and pseudoscience. Popper spent his formative years in early twentieth century Vienna, where intellectual life was dominated by sciencebased ideologies like Marxism and the psychoanalytic schools of Freud and Adler. These were widely accepted as legitimate branches of natural science, and they attracted large followings among intellectuals because they appeared to have such immense explanatory power. Acceptance of either Marxism or psychoanalysis had, as Popper observed,
   

   the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the
   theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class
   interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘unanalyzed* and crying aloud for treatment…. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations.’

   Popper saw that a theory that appears to explain everything actually explains nothing. If wages fell this was because the capitalists were exploiting the workers, as Marx predicted they would, and if wages rose this was because the capitalists were trying to save a rotten system with bribery, which was also what Marxism predicted. A psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder— or, with equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to save another. According to Popper, however, a theory with genuine explanatory power makes risky predictions, which exclude most possible outcomes. Success in prediction is impressive only to the extent that failure was a real possibility.
5. 5

   MungMarch 5, 2013 at 2:05 pm

   What argument?
6. 6

   bornagain77March 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm

   Thanks jstanley01,,,

   ,,here are a few examples of Darwinism explaining everything and thus explaining nothing:

   Here is how neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from ‘anomalous’ genetic evidence:

   How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....32141.html

   Common Ancestry: Wikipedia vs. the Data – Casey Luskin – October 5, 2012
   Excerpt: ,,, if two phylogenetic trees aren’t congruent, the problem isn’t that common descent is wrong, but rather the conflict is simply evidence of HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer).,,, Syvanen, (in “Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 46:339-356 (2012), invokes widespread HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer), but he’s uncommonly honest about the data and its implications, offering the radical suggestion that “life might indeed have multiple origins.”,,,
   let’s now look within eukaryotes.,,,
   The biochemical organization of the innate immune systems of plants and animals is strikingly similar — but this is a direct non-correlation with common descent. Thus, evolutionary scientists are forced to call them “unexpectedly similar,” postulating that the similarities were “independently derived.” This data is not explained by Darwinian evolution and common descent. It is explained by common design.
   Somehow, something tells me not to expect any corrections over at Wikipedia.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65001.html

   Evolution Falsified Yet Again: They Are So Complicated “That it’s Stunning” – Cornelius Hunter – April 2012
   Excerpt: These similarities between the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, of very odd and peculiar traits, disproves evolution yet again. It’s just another example of how the evidence explains evolution rather than evolution explaining the evidence. Evolution is a tautology. It is contorted to fit whatever we find in nature, no matter how absurd the theory must become.
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....y-are.html

   You Won’t Believe How Evolutionists Say These Two Major Contradictions Cancel Each Other Out – March 2012
   Excerpt: Well it turns out evolutionists have found a way to play the one against the other, so they cancel themselves out simultaneously, in their minds. In a clever argument, they say that the preadapted genomes paved the way for the abrupt appearance of fantastic designs that came later. Of course none of this actually solves the problems, but it sounds very scientific and impressive:
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....s-say.html

   An Enzyme’s Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case of Convergent Evolution – Jonathan M. – February 11, 2013
   Excerpt: The authors attempt to account for the incongruity by positing that “the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” They thus attribute the shared genes to horizontal gene transfer (with no offered mechanism), a proposition that has become a catch-all to explain away severe conflicts between evolutionary phylogenies.,,,
   “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception”
   (Dávalos et al., 2012).
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....68911.html

   Here’s the Latest Just-So Story: Recurrent Evolution – Cornelius Hunter – April 2012
   Excerpt: The first step to explaining something away is to give it a name. And so evolutionists have labeled this awkward evidence as recurrent evolution.,,, If the pattern fits the evolutionary tree, then it is explained as common evolutionary history. If not, then it is explained as common evolutionary forces. Heads I win, tails you lose.,, Common descent has always been an auxiliary hypothesis for the simple reason that evolution’s theoretical core does not mandate common descent, or anything else for that matter, aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally. Beyond that, anything goes.,, Evolutionists insist the species arose naturally, their religion requires it.
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....rrent.html

   Another Evolutionary Just-So Story Was Just Refuted (But Another One Replaced it) – Cornelius Hunter – March 2012
   Excerpt: as one evolutionist explained:
   “Our most significant findings reveal not only differences between the species reflecting millions of years of evolutionary divergence, but also similarities in parallel changes over time since their common ancestor.”
   You remember learning that with evolution species split and move apart. Now, amazingly, we know they also evolve together. Differences, similarities, whatever. In any case, it’s Evidence 1, Evolution 0:
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....y-was.html

   Here are articles that clearly illustrate that the protein evidence, no matter how crushing to Darwinism, is always crammed into the Darwinian framework by Evolutionists:

   The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study – Cornelius Hunter – January 2011
   http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....etics.html
7. 7

   bornagain77March 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm

   Here is how Darwinists avoid falsification from the fossil record:

   “What Would Disprove Evolution?” – July 10, 2012
   Excerpt: Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Paleontological theory, however, allows for such devices as “ghost lineages” to repair the damage; see ENV’s coverage here and here. (links on the site)
   Again, discordance between molecular and anatomical phylogenies is commonplace in systematics; see here.(link on the site)
   But we expect Coyne is able to handle these anomalies via his shock-absorbing adjective “complete,” which allows an indefinitely large range of possibilities, short of “complete” discordance (whatever that means).
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61891.html

   Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
   Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....31061.html

   Here is how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:

   More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism – March 2010
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....32471.html

   The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011
   Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52571.html

   along that same line:

   Convergence Convenience – October 8, 2012
   Excerpt: Evolutionary theory has a classification scheme that cannot lose. Darwin’s original tree diagram described “divergent evolution,” a process beginning with speciation followed by the accumulation of variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time. Animals with similar structures on the same branch are said to have “homologous” traits, because they derive from the same common ancestor. But the living world is filled with traits that resemble each other on different branches. What caused that? Ah, the evolutionist replies: those traits are due to “convergent evolution.” The similarities are “analogous” traits, because they do not derive from the same common ancestor. With this classification scheme, evolution explains everything: if similar animals are related, they evolved; if they are unrelated, they evolved. Is this a description of reality, or rather a convenient strategy for rendering evolution immune from falsification? Here are some recent examples of “convergent evolution” from the literature. (7 examples of ‘just so’ stories are cited),,,
   ,,,The Wikipedia entry on “Convergent Evolution” shows that the concept has undergone a bit of taxonomic diversification itself: there’s functional convergence, homoplasy, synapomorphy, parallel evolution, re-evolution and evolutionary relay. Convergence might be detected at the morphological level or at the molecular level. As for causes of convergent evolution, the article claims that animals with similar niches are likely to evolve similar equipment. And yet that can hardly be a “law of nature,” because many organisms occupy similar niches without “convergent” traits. Thus, they are divergent except when they are convergent – an explanation that explains opposite concepts. (and is thus impossible to falsify, i.e. heads I win, tails you lose!))
   http://crev.info/2012/10/convergence-convenience/

   And, as we recently saw with the reactions to ENCODE (i.e. junk DNA fiasco), Darwinist also resort to changing their theory after contradictory evidence comes in and then claiming that Darwinism predicted such contradictory findings all along:

   Science practiced Darwinian style with ‘junk’ DNA -
   Data Peeking, an Indispensible Implement in the Darwinian Toolbox – Nov. 19, 2012
   Excerpt: This is called “Data Peeking,” and it is also called “Bad Faith.” It works this way:
   1. Gather data and/or run an experiment.
   2. Determine the results.
   3. Think up an explanation (perhaps a just so story, or maybe a worthwhile explanation).
   4. Label your explanation a theory.
   5. Unveil the data in public, proclaiming, “Just as my theory predicts…”
   The key (to making this work) is the order of presentation. You offer the results to others after you run the experiments. When discussing, you give the just-so-story first, then the data, and then grandly proclaim that the results are just as you predicted.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66501.html

   “Moving the Goalpost: How Darwin’s Theory Survives” – podcast – January 2013
   http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_48-08_00
8. 8

   sagebrush gardenerMarch 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm

   Evolutionists are constantly surprised by their next encounter with the data and evolution is constantly in combat with these hostile threats.

   That quote from the article is a keeper.
9. 9

   bornagain77March 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm

   It interesting to note what Dr. Torley stated in his recent article exposing the ‘in thin air’ foundation that Darwinism rests upon:

   Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
   Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

   The lack of a mathematical foundation was particularly surprising for me, because I had been assured by a evolutionary professor (whom Dr. Torley referenced in his article) here on UD, years ago, that Darwinism was ‘mathematical’ through and through. And yes one can say that Darwinism is ‘mathematical’ through and through, but what one cannot say is that Darwinism has a rigid mathematical basis from which one can make extensive predictions with) Well, after being subtly misled for years by that professor’s distortion of the facts, I finally, in my slow pace, started to piece together the fact that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation at all,,

   Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
   Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
   http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

   Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE

   Oxford University Admits Darwinism’s Shaky Math Foundation – May 2011
   Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

   In fact, contrary to what the employers at Oxford would like to believe, the truth is that there is not some magical mystery equation out there waiting to be discovered to finally give Darwinism the foundation that it needs to be considered truly scientific. The fact is that Darwinists have refused to listen to what the equations of population genetics are thus far telling them. i.e. Darwinists refuse to accept the falsification of their theory from mathematics:

   Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
   Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
   Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
   http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

   This is simply unheard of in science. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics subject themselves constantly to potential falsification, as well as refinement for accuracy, to see if their mathematical descriptions of reality accurately predict what is observed for reality.

   “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
   Leonardo Da Vinci

   In my unsolicited personal opinion, the main reason Darwinism cannot be formulated into any coherent mathematical model to give accurate, ‘daring’, predictions is because of its reliance on the ‘random variable postulate’ at the base of its formulation:

   “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
   Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -

   Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
   Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
   In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
   This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
   http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

   Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
   “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
   Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

   Moreover, as Alvin Plantiga has shown in his Evolutionary argument against naturalism, (i.e. a refinement of “The argument from reason” from CS Lewis), this ‘random variable postulate’ ends up driving neo-Darwinism into epistemological failure,,,

   Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
   Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
   Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
   “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
   Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
   http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

   ,,, the ‘unrestrained randomness’ at the base of Darwinism, if neo-Darwinism were actually true, results in the epistemological failure of science itself! But this really should not come as a surprise to anyone for how can a theory which denies the reality of mind in the first place be said to guarantee that our perceptions and reasoning of mind are trustworthy?

   “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”.
   J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.

   Supplemental notes:

   In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:

   Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
   Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
   According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
   http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

   In other words, if my conscious choices really are just the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (determinism) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,

   Here is another piece of evidence that solidly demarcates the randomness of the material particles of the universe from the randomness that would be necessarily inherent within ‘conscious’ creatures created by God with free will:

   Quantum Zeno effect
   Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-445840

   Since material particles are held to ‘randomly’ decay, why in blue blazes is conscious observation putting a freeze on ‘random’ entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than ‘random’ entropic decay is? This point is really driven home when we realize that the initial entropy of the universe was 1 in 10^10^123, which is, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the universe.

   “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”
   Charles Darwin to Doedes, N. D. – Letter – 2 Apr 1873

   Music and verse:

   Phillips, Craig & Dean – Great I Am – music
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSoz6L1vqm8

   Genesis 2:7
   And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
10. 10

    Alan FoxMarch 5, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    It’s certainly knock-about fun in the comment thread at C. Hunter’s blog!
11. 11

    MungMarch 5, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Are you trolling there too Alan?
12. 12

    Alan FoxMarch 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    Good grief, no. That blog is even more obscure than UD!
13. 13

    MungMarch 5, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    So Alan, you feel your trolling here is more productive? How so?
14. 14

    jstanley01March 5, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    I had noticed that for a time Prof. Hunter closed down comments on his blog, then he opened them back up. He must have missed the chuckles.
15. 15

    Alan FoxMarch 5, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    …you feel your trolling here is more productive? How so?

    I can’t rule out the possibility that someone may eventually set out a hypothesis of “intelligent design” as has been threatened on occasion. Hunter is a straight Creationist so there’s zero likelihood of any sense emerging there.

    You said you left the YEC fold, didn’t you, mung?
16. 16

    MungMarch 5, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Alan Fox:

    You said you left the YEC fold, didn’t you, mung?

    And?

    I would never go so far as to say that “there’s zero likelihood of any sense emerging” from someone with YEC beliefs.

    On the other hand, how someone could be an atheist and yet maintain they are rational is still beyond me.

    How do you explain why anyone should listen to or give consideration to anything you might say here at UD Alan? Why do you care unless you believe in Truth?
17. 17

    MungMarch 5, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    In fact, what Cornelius Hunter writes usually makes a great deal of sense to me. His exposure of the theological underpinnings of Darwinism was masterful. Did you ever even read Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Alan?

    And it’s not as if every post he writes depends on the truth of a recent creation event. If he’s a Young Earth Creationist I haven’t ever seen him making that argument.
18. 18

    MungMarch 5, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    Alan Fox:

    I can’t rule out the possibility that someone may eventually set out a hypothesis of “intelligent design” as has been threatened on occasion.

    That’s because you’ve never bothered to even stop and think about the subject. In other words, you’re the worst sort of critic. The unthinking critic. The unreflective critic. The dogmatic critic. The hypocritical critic, critical of everything except his own skepticism.

    Simply, the farcical critic. aka Alan Fox.

    It is simply impossible to take you seriously.

    So I don’t.
19. 19

    Robert ByersMarch 5, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    Evolution does refute the Christian doctrines revealed in genesis.
    It is attacking the christian faith as far as this goes at least.
    Well many say the christian faith is persuasive and was here first.
    So the right of self defence.

    Next is the claim that they proved their case with the evidence.
    Then we can contend the evidence.
    YEC and ID do this well and if its a bad case they will lose in time.

    I say we need first attck their methodology for their evidence.
    A false theory of biology could not possibly have SCIENTIFIC biological evidence backing it up.
20. 20

    AxelMarch 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    ‘Hunter is a straight Creationist so there’s zero likelihood of any sense emerging there.’

    Why do you think that Einstein, Planck, Bohr and Godel were senseless, Reynard? And yourself, a rather sensible person, in comparison?

    I get it…. you’re being cryptic about it, but you’ve just come up with, not one, but two, radically-new paradigms which are going to revolutionise physics and mathematics. Nice work!
21. 21

    JoeMarch 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Alan Fox:

    I can’t rule out the possibility that someone may eventually set out a hypothesis of “intelligent design” as has been threatened on occasion.

    It has been done, Alan. And by several different people. However you don’t seem to know what a hypothesis is so you wouldn’t know what we have and have not done.
22. 22

    AxelMarch 6, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    He’s heard of the word, though, Joe. ‘It’s definitely a word,’ “hypothesis”, I think I hear him saying.
23. 23

    Alan FoxMarch 6, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    I think I hear him saying.

    I’ve certainly been asking for an ID hypothesis. Can you find one for me, Axel?
24. 24

    timothyaMarch 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    Alan Fox:

    I’ve certainly been asking for an ID hypothesis. Can you find one for me, Axel?

    Preferably a scientific hypothesis. One that addresses the what, when, where and how questions.
25. 25

    Eric AndersonMarch 8, 2013 at 10:23 am

    timothya @24:

    So is it your position that for a theory to be scientific it must address all relevant questions?
26. 26

    PhinehasMarch 8, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Off Topic:

    Evolutionists are surprised yet again.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/si.....33011.html

    Conclusion from the article: “DNA suggests there may have been an earlier species of humans that went extinct—but not before interbreeding with the more modern version of man.”