Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Disease

_{Salvador Cordova

April 27, 2009

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”

This is a phrase a software engineer will use to jokingly confess his software has a defect.

When Sharon Moalem wrote the NY Times Bestseller, Survival of the Sickest: Why We Need Disease, he probably did not intend to make a joking confession of flaws in Darwin’s theory, but he succeed in doing so.

Recall the words of Darwin:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

If Darwin’s claim is true, why then are we confronted with numerous, persistent, hereditary diseases?

Can it be that Darwin was wrong? The obvious answer is yes. But in the face of an obvious flaw in Darwin’s ideas, Moalem argues that what appears to be a flaw in Darwin’s theory is actually an ingenious feature! Moalem extols the virtues of disease, and since disease is virtuous, natural selection will favor it.

It is accepted that sickle-cell anemia persists because of natural selection, but what about other diseases? Moalem explores many other diseases like diabetes, hemochromatosis, high cholesterol, early aging, favism, obesity, PANDAS, CCR5-delta32, xenophobia, etc. showing how natural selection incorporated these “virtuous” diseases into our species.

Moalem is not alone in arguing that natural selection creates through the process of destruction. For example, Allen Orr suggests that natural selection is the cause of blindness in Gammarus minus. In the world of Darwin, what happened to Gammarus minus isn’t the loss of vision, it is the creation of blindness. And since selection favors blindness in Gammarus minus, blindness is a functional improvement! Once again, Darwinism is immune to any testability through the process of constantly redefining what is considered “good”.

The net result is that Moalem’s book becomes an unwitting critique of Darwinian evolution. It highlights numerous empirical examples of how natural selection actually goes against Darwinian ideas of constant progress, and instead demonstrates how natural selection can be an agent of demise.

Comments

In the paper I referenced Ian Stewart says that “even though creatures can choose mates from the other group, the clusters tighten up and remain separate from each other.” Sympatric speciation…
Yes, that is one way sympatric speciation can occur. There is still reproductive isolation between the two groups because there is selection against the intermediate (hybrid) phenotypes which significantly reduces gene flow between them. If the hybrids have significantly reduced fertility (i.e., lower fitness), then gene flow between the groups will be reduced. Individuals with one of the two selected phenotypes who mate with individuals in their own group will have significantly more offspring than those who mate with individuals from a different group. Gene flow is considerably reduced between the groups this way. That is one form of postzygotic reproductive isolation. And, as I said, divergence depends primarily on reproductive isolation.Dave Wisker_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

In the paper I referenced Ian Stewart says that "even though creatures can choose mates from the other group, the clusters tighten up and remain separate from each other." Sympatric speciation...Joseph_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Hi joseph, To amplify on my previous comment, the phenomenon you are talking about is called divergent or disruptive selection. This leads to reproductive isolation between the two divergent phenotypes (and their underlying genotypes) because the heterozygote, or hybrid phenotype, is selected against, preventing or severely reducing gene flow between them. Here is a paper that does a great job discussing the phenomenon in light of speciation: Schluter, D (2001). Ecology and the origin of species. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution 16(7): 372-380. From the article:
ECOLOGICAL SPECIATION (see Glossary) occurs when DIVERGENT SELECTION on traits between populations or subpopulations in contrasting environments leads directly or indirectly to the evolution of REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION.
As always, I apologize in advance for the delays my comments have in appearing. It is due entirely to the fact that all my comments are held up by moderation, sometimes for many hours.Dave Wisker_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

joseph writes:
The paper that demonstrates that divergence can and does take place without geological separation is: “How the Species Became” by IanStewart- New Scientist” 10/11/2003 The basic premise is that there is variation in a population- for example the beaks of finches. Some have longer beaks, some have shorter beaks and some have medium length beaks. The selection pressure occurs in the middle, taking out all the medium length beaks. You are left with short and long beaked finches.
That's interesting, but I never said divergence depended primarily on geographical separation. I said it depended primarily on reproductive isolation, which can occur in many different ways, geographic isolation being only one of them.Dave Wisker_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

I am going to amend this comment I made to Allen @389: "Either this is the first time that this information has been presented to you or else you are stonewalling." That's a little too strong. Let's just say that certain conflicting accounts need to be resolved.StephenB_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Hi Frost at #385, Indeed he does. In fact, Allen MacNeill has recently said on another thread that to argue against teleology (design, purpose) is to argue for evolutionary biology. Notice how he has necessary infused metaphysics with his evolutionary biology. He also tells us that Darwin did just the same in OOS (i.e. argued against purpose/ends/design). [aside; Darwin knew full well he was making a metaphysical claim and was intent that his science would reshape the entire metaphysic of society] So evolutionary biology is not merely an empirical science but also a metaphysical claim. Likewise MacNeill redefined "random" a while back, for its use in evolutionary biology as "without foresight. Ergo, Allen MaNeill believes that evolutionary biology speaks towards ends and purpose and he is necessarily making metaphysical claims when he advances his case.Charlie_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, My apologies but I was very busy last week. The paper that demonstrates that divergence can and does take place without geological separation is: "How the Species Became" by IanStewart- New Scientist" 10/11/2003 The basic premise is that there is variation in a population- for example the beaks of finches. Some have longer beaks, some have shorter beaks and some have medium length beaks. The selection pressure occurs in the middle, taking out all the medium length beaks. You are left with short and long beaked finches.Joseph_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

I wrote: “The good old boys got together in the smoke filled rooms of academia and established a new rule called methodological naturalism.” “The real issue was to disfranchise ID from the community of researches and scholars by making it appear as non-scientific…” “So, for Darwinists a methodology can be old or new, true or false, existent or non-existent—whatever works.” ----Allen: ..."isn’t exactly “character assassination”, it isn’t exactly the truth, either. In my opinion, making ad hominem arguments is never justified in scientific debates, and is also ultimately self-defeating." Well, the scientific community has indeed established methodological naturalism as its official scientific methodology. [The stringent definition]. The definition did not write itself. I know that many evolutionary biologists believe in "emergence" but, as far as I know, no formal definition has ever emerged without an intelligent designer. So, if you don't like the metaphor or "smoke filled rooms," we can just say Darwinist cabal. I still don't understand why explaining that fact constitutes an ad hominem argument, although I can understand how accusing the bearer of bad news [me] of resorting to ad hominem arguments is an ad hominem argument.StephenB_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

----AllenMacNeill:) “Methodological naturalism: I’m not certain I have ever claimed that I myself have ever adhered to the rule of “methodological naturalism” as stephenB defines it in doing my own research. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve even thought about it much at all until very recently. In this thread, I have asserted that, at least since the time of Francis Bacon, most scientists have based their conclusions on empirical evidence only, inferring such conclusions using inductive reasoning. So, if by “renouncing methodological naturalism” (MN) stephenB means his definition of MN (with which I clearly do not agree, as shown by our comments in this thread) – that is, a version of MN in which non-natural causes for empirically observable phenomena are ruled out a priori – then I will indeed cheerfully rule out applying his version of MN when doing my own science, and in describing it to others.” The definition that I put forth is not my definition and you know it. I provided several examples from other writers including ID advocate Plantinga and Darwinist advocate Paul Kurtz. Indeed, the definition that you offered originally on this thread was different from the real definition, and you tried to get some mileage out of it. The real definition, the one which you now put at the end of your paragraph, [non-natural causes ruled out apriori] is the one used to invalidate ID. I am not asking to refrain from using it yourself, which would be a meaningless gesture. I am asking you to renounce it as unfair as put forth by your colleagues. Please stop with the posturing. ----Isaac Newton: I believe that this is the very first debate in which I have ever characterized Isaac Newton’s declaration of “hypotheses non fingo” from the General Scholium to his Principia Mathematica as adhering to the principle of MN. Having finally understood what stephenB means by his definition of MN, I can once again declare that, to the best of my knowledge, Newton indeed never applied stephenB’s definition of MN to his physics." How can you say that you finally understood what I meant by methodological naturalism? Are you telling me that this is the first time you have had it presented to you? There is only one definition of methodological naturalism and it is not MY definition. In any case, if you believe the first sentence, why would you bother to write the second sentence? Why do you continue to evade the subject by refusing to acknowledge the one and only definition of methodological naturalism? The word “naturalism” follows the word “methodological” for a reason. Either you are just now learning this [hard to believe] or you have been stonewalling. Have you so soon forgotten that you insisted that methodogical naturalism goes all the way back to ancient Greece and passed through the middle ages? Please! ---“Conflating creationism and intelligent design: This one is easy: I have already agreed with my good friend and colleague (and intellectual opponent), Hannah Maxson, that such a conflation is both inaccurate and inflammatory. Henceforth, I shall not conflate the two, neither in by blog or in my other writings. In return, I would hope that stephenB and the rest of the ID supporters here will refrain from asserting that “all evolutionary biologists are atheists who conceal their real beliefs” and “all evolutionary biologists have conspired to exclude ID theorists (such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, John Sanford, etc.) and ID supporters (such as Hannah Maxson, Rabia Malik, etc.)” from either publishing, speaking about, or pursuing their investigations into the possibility that teleology might, in fact, be part of the causal process in evolution. They now know my position on all three of these issues, and to continue to make assertions to the contrary would therefore be to perpetuate a lie, plain and simple. And please note that just leaving off the numerical qualifier “all” in the sentences above does not substantively change their meaning.” So, now you are resorting to strawmen? When did I ever say that ALL evolutionary biologists are atheists who conceal their beliefs? In fact, 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are either atheist or agnostic. For your informatin, Eugenie Scott has gone on record of asking them to conceal their beliefs, but I have no way of knowing whether they comply or not. I have pointed that out in the past and I will continue to point it out. Also, I wish that you would read more carefully. In a previous post, I went out of my way to point out that I don’t believe that your personally suppress freedom of speech. I did, however, point out that you add to the circle of confusion by refusing to acknowledge the true definition of methodological naturalism. Please observe the relevant nuances. The world of evolutionary biologists is bigger than your classroom, so to say that you personally don’t persecute, which I am sure is true, does not change the sad state of the big picture. Being a scientist, I am sure that you can appreciate how unscientific it is to appeal to your own situation as counter evidence.StephenB_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Mr MacMeill: In citing the "I feign no hypotehses" excerpt from Newton's General Scholium, you need to give the overall context, as I have excerprted at say 259 above. I think that gives a very different picture formteh one you are painting: for in that, Newton made his Hebraic-Christian framework very plain. [Yes, I know he was a "heretic" but he is OUR heretic.] In particular, he considered it entirely appropriate as an integral part of natural philosophy -- which when it established findings produced "science" i.e knowledge -- to infer from the lawful, unified order and observed frame of the cosmos to its Designer, Creator and PANTOKRATOR; as that necessary being who is intelligent and wise, also being in part knowable from his works that are studied by what we now call science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 3, 2009
May
05
May
3
03
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Allen, ----“I believe that when all sides of the debate are given a fair chance to make as complete a presentation of their views as possible so that students can make up their own minds where they stand on the issues, the most common outcome is that students tend to side with those who advocate evolutionary biology as the most convincing explanation for the underlying cause of biological diversity and functional adaptation.” My experience is the complete opposite.Clive Hayden_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill says:
Personally, I disagree with the assertion that teachers of evolutionary biology (or science in general) should prohibit discussion of creationism or ID in their classrooms or lecture halls.
MacNeill claims that because of his personal experience and feelings stephenB would not be justified in making statements such as this (by MacNeill):
“all evolutionary biologists have conspired to exclude ID theorists ... and ID supporters ... from either publishing, speaking about, or pursuing their investigations into the possibility that teleology might, in fact, be part of the causal process in evolution.
Even if someone like stephenB were not actually to say "all". Because Allen MacNeill has made his personal feelings known one would be "lying" in making such statements that contradict MacNeill's own position. As he further asserts:
And please note that just leaving off the numerical qualifier “all” in the sentences above does not substantively change their meaning.
as though his experience entails that the sentiments are lies ("plain and simple") even if one is not saying all evolutionary biologists. Too bad Allen MacNeill doesn't really seem to be representative of the all: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090502/NEWS10/905020333/-1/NEWSCharlie_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Allen's quote seems to be pitting evolutionary biology against ID but ID can in fact go hand in hand with EB. Bottom line is that EB needs ID to make it reasonable- but ID does not necessarily need EB- though empirical evidence and good science can in fact shape the need for EB in life's explanation.Frost122585_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Allan writes: "I believe that when all sides of the debate are given a fair chance to make as complete a presentation of their views as possible so that students can make up their own minds where they stand on the issues, the most common outcome is that students tend to side with those who advocate evolutionary biology as the most convincing explanation for the underlying cause of biological diversity and functional adaptation." The best explanation for your data has nothing to do with the student's actualy beliefs. It has everything to do with the fact that students tend to tell their professors (who hold their academic success in their hands after all) what they want to hear. You know that, and your pretense that you are "just reporting the facts" is risible.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Take Two: Nope?
Nope; the only significant changes have been a move away from the “God-guided” and “ID-guided” statements toward evolutionary and YEC statements (in almost equal frequencies).
I thought that’s what I said:
I remember you saying that a significant number move toward creationism after your lectures.
At any rate, thank you very much for responding and clarifying. Did you mention how many days Behe, for instance, would lecture in your class on the ID side throughout the term, as opposed to how many days you lectured on the validity of the non-teleological explanation?Charlie_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Nope? Nope; the only significant changes have been a move away from the “God-guided” and “ID-guided” statements toward evolutionary and YEC statements (in almost equal frequencies). I thought that's what I said. At any rate, thank you very much for responding and clarifying. Did you mention how many days Behe would lecture in your class on the ID side throughout the term, as opposed to how many days you lectured on the validity of the non-teleological explanation?Charlie_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Re #379:
"I remember you saying that a significant number move toward creationism after your lectures."
Nope; the only significant changes have been a move away from the "God-guided" and "ID-guided" statements toward evolutionary and YEC statements (in almost equal frequencies). Interestingly, over the years the proportion of the class that has chosen the "non-guided evolution" statement at the very beginning of the course has steadily grown, while the proportion choosing the "God-guided" and "ID-guided" statements have steadily declined. Also, the proportion that has chosen the YEC statement at the beginning of the course has remained almost constant at around 10%. I can provide the actual statistics to anyone who is interested; just drop a comment at my blog ( http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com ), along with contact information. This outcome squares with the recent observation that there has been a significant increase in atheism in the United States as a whole. However, I want to make it very clear that I do not cite this trend as "proof" that people who accept the non-guided evolutionary explanation are necessarily atheists, only that the two phenomena are correlated.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Every once in a while I read the ASA forum and in April there was a long discussion of methodological naturalism there. Many of the points brought up here were brought up there. There was one interesting comment about the supernatural and it was that it is frequently studied by science but only in the negative, that is to debunk it. So telepathy or the power of prayer etc are fair game in science as long as the objective is to disprove it. My guess a study showing that prayer is effective would be sent off to another non scientific journal or would start a mass spending for studies to disprove it. One telling comment was that methodological naturalism that defines it as only allowing natural causes is of itself not neutral on the separation of church and state issue. My guess is that the definition that allows non natural explanations is more of a neutral position.jerry_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Hi Allen MacNeill, Can you refresh our memory on the actual breakdown of students' beliefs, pre/post term, as per your questionnaire? I remember you saying that a significant number move toward creationism after your lectures.Charlie_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

And here's something for stephenB to chew on while considering my response to his "demands": I have been teaching introductory biology at Cornell for 32 years and evolution for 14 years. In every single one of those years, I and/or my colleague Will Provine have invited (and supported) the following individuals to come and make presentations in our evolution courses (without censorship, prohibitions, or pre-conditions): Michael Behe John Grehan Phillip Johnson Hannah Maxson John Sanford Indeed, in the case of Hannah Maxson, I invited her to be a co-presenter in my notorious "evolution and design" seminar at Cornell in the summer of 2006. You can read about it here: http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/ Furthermore, in every single case we have encouraged students to make up their own minds about which side of the debate they supported, and required them to defend those positions to the best of their abilities, in class discussions and on essays and research papers. So, while making blanket characterizations such as these:
"The good old boys got together in the smoke filled rooms of academia and established a new rule called methodological naturalism." "The real issue was to disfranchise ID from the community of researches and scholars by making it appear as non-scientific..." "So, for Darwinists a methodology can be old or new, true or false, existent or non-existent—whatever works."
isn't exactly "character assassination", it isn't exactly the truth, either. In my opinion, making ad hominem arguments is never justified in scientific debates, and is also ultimately self-defeating. Personally, I disagree with the assertion that teachers of evolutionary biology (or science in general) should prohibit discussion of creationism or ID in their classrooms or lecture halls. On the contrary, I believe that when all sides of the debate are given a fair chance to make as complete a presentation of their views as possible so that students can make up their own minds where they stand on the issues, the most common outcome is that students tend to side with those who advocate evolutionary biology as the most convincing explanation for the underlying cause of biological diversity and functional adaptation.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

In #370 stephenB wrote:
"Allen can simply say, I renounce that arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism, I promise never to attribute it to Sir Isaac Newton again, and, in the name of truth, I promise I will never conflate creationism and intelligent design on my website again."
I will take stephenb's three requests one at a time: 1) "Methodological naturalism: I'm not certain I have ever claimed that I myself have ever adhered to the rule of "methodological naturalism" as stephenB defines it in doing my own research. Indeed, I don't think I've even thought about it much at all until very recently. In this thread, I have asserted that, at least since the time of Francis Bacon, most scientists have based their conclusions on empirical evidence only, inferring such conclusions using inductive reasoning. So, if by "renouncing methodological naturalism" (MN) stephenB means his definition of MN (with which I clearly do not agree, as shown by our comments in this thread) – that is, a version of MN in which non-natural causes for empirically observable phenomena are ruled out a priori – then I will indeed cheerfully rule out applying his version of MN when doing my own science, and in describing it to others. 2) Isaac Newton: I believe that this is the very first debate in which I have ever characterized Isaac Newton's declaration of "hypotheses non fingo" from the General Scholium to his Principia Mathematica as adhering to the principle of MN. Having finally understood what stephenB means by his definition of MN, I can once again declare that, to the best of my knowledge, Newton indeed never applied stephenB's definition of MN to his physics. Ergo, if the subject ever comes up again, I will henceforth simply quote in full Newton's "hypothesis non fingo" declaration, as translated from the General Scholium ("I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction"), and include a reference to the whole of the Principia and the General Scholium, and let readers willing to read both conclude from them what they may. 3) Conflating creationism and intelligent design: This one is easy: I have already agreed with my good friend and colleague (and intellectual opponent), Hannah Maxson, that such a conflation is both inaccurate and inflammatory. Henceforth, I shall not conflate the two, neither in by blog or in my other writings. In return, I would hope that stephenB and the rest of the ID supporters here will refrain from asserting that "all evolutionary biologists are atheists who conceal their real beliefs" and "all evolutionary biologists have conspired to exclude ID theorists (such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, John Sanford, etc.) and ID supporters (such as Hannah Maxson, Rabia Malik, etc.)" from either publishing, speaking about, or pursuing their investigations into the possibility that teleology might, in fact, be part of the causal process in evolution. They now know my position on all three of these issues, and to continue to make assertions to the contrary would therefore be to perpetuate a lie, plain and simple. And please note that just leaving off the numerical qualifier "all" in the sentences above does not substantively change their meaning.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

375 [Revelations]StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Yes, and here is a little something to chew on while Allen and hazel bristle at my relelations: Timothy White, president of Idaho University, established a speech code which banned any criticism of Darwinian evolution. Nancy Bryson, chemistry professor, was fired from a state university for giving a lecture on scientific criticism of Darwin’s theory. Bryan Leonard, graduate student at Ohio State, was accused of “unethical human subject experimentation" for criticizing Darwin’s theory. Robert Hart, high school teacher was fired from a public school teaching position for “wanting” to teach both sides of the issue. From PZ Myers, at the University of Minnesota, “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.” So, according to Allen, I am a character assassin for pointing out these things. How exactly does that work? Can someone explain it to me?StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Wow - I'm glad that's cleared up. That's a quote to remember:
Thanks for bringing that up again. Insofar as they [theistic evolutionists] refuse to allow the ID scientist to draw a design inference in the name of science they are far worse than the Darwinists, because they claim to believe in Christianity, which holds that design in nature is evident. So, yes they are even worse, far worse.
hazel_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Hazel, @363 Thanks again for raising that issue about my comment, "totally irrelevant." I just glossed over it too quickly the first two times. It is totally relevant.StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

----Hazel: "When I have pointed out that in fact thousands of Christian scientists who do believe in God and would assent to the idea that they are “thinking God’s thoughts after him” also would say that they practice methodological naturalism." OK, yes, I get the point. Yes, theistic evolutions are definitely part of the persection. Thanks for bringing that up again. Insofar as they refuse to allow the ID scientist to draw a design inference in the name of science they are far worse than the Darwinists, because they claim to believe in Christianity, which holds that design in nature is evident. So, yes they are even worse, far worse.StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

@370 Ben Stein is not a character [assassin.]StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

What a strange response @361. I explain that ID scientists have been persecuted through the arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism, in conjunction with the "creationism" slander, and Allen says that I, the bearer of that bad news, am the character assassin. For what it is worth, I believe that Allen has been quite tolerant in his own community in terms of allowing freedom of speech. So I happily qualify my statements with that nuance. On the other hand, the facts I report are true about the Darwinist academy in general, whether Allen has ever ratified that policy or not. The movie "Expelled" was not a lie and Ben Stein was not a character assassinator. At the same time, one can indirectly contribute to the problem by continuing to promote the big lie. Now, there is a way around this. Allen can simply say, I renounce that arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism, I promise never to attribute it to Sir Isaac Newton again, and, in the name of truth, I promise I will never conflate creationism and intelligent design on my website again. What is unreasonable about what I have just said? I attack the Darwinist community in general for real crimes against free speech and that makes me guilty of character assassination. But Allen calls me a character assassin and compares me to John Davison, but that is not character assassination. What kind of bizarre thinking is this?StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Allen, I just posted on it.tribune7_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

P.S. Has anyone else received a message that "comments are closed" on the thread discussing Dr. Dembski's upcoming paper on "Life's Conservation Law": https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/life%E2%80%99s-conservation-law-why-darwinian-evolution-cannot-create-biological-information/ or is it just me?Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply