The Reverend Jerry Coyne has condescended to reveal a treasure of timeless truths in his little revelation entitled Why Evolution is True. That these truths are metaphysical--they cannot be deduced from science--make them especially precious. In his revelation Reverend Coyne illuminates a wide range of truths for us to revere. Here is an oracle of Coyne on bad design:What I mean by "bad design" is the notion that if organisms were built from scratch by a designer--one who used the biological building blocks of nerves, muscles, bone, and so on--they would not have such imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution. ...
Flatfish are born as normal-looking fish that swim vertically, with one eye placed on each side of a pancake-shaped body. But a month thereafter, a strange thing happens: one eye begins to move upward. It migrates over the skull and joins the other eye to form a pair of eyes on one side of the body, either right of left, depending on the species. The skull also changes its shape to promote this movement, and there are changes in the fins and color. In concert, the flatfish tips onto its newly eyeless side, so that both eyes are now on top. ...
If you wanted to design a flatfish, you wouldn't do it this way. You'd produce a fish like the skate, which is flat from birth and lies on its belly--not one that has to achieve flatness by lying on its side, moving its eyes and deforming the skull. Flatfish are poorly designed. ...
the particular bad designs that we see make sense only if they evolved ... [81:3-85:3]
As the Most High Coyne reveals, perfect design is, truly, truly, a sign of a skilled designer. No designer would design the species we find. Evolution must be true. Such ultimate truths can only come from a prophet. Amen.
He kinda has a point though. Such arrangements do at least SEEM to make little sense for a great, all-powerful designer to design.
ReplyDeleteGranted this is not PROOF that they were not designed. It may be that these arrangements were designed. Even designed TO LOOK badly designed. But ID advocates not only have to contend with their 'theory' being no such thing, seeing as how it makes no testable predictions, is supported by no evidence, invokes supernatural agents, etc., but they must also explain these examples of apparent bad design. Which is a huge sticking point when the whole premise of your 'theory' is that everything is designed.
In short, ID is not only unsupported by evidence, it also makes little sense - even taken on its own terms.
Of course, this does not make it impossible for these features to have been designed. And evolution is not built upon simply pointing out the flaws of a competing 'theory' - ID (if did do this, THEN perhaps you would be justified in calling evolution a theory built on religious supposition). It is based on a cache of positive, testable evidence and data, which is well outlined in Coyne's book.
Evidence which, incidentally, ID is totally lacking.
Draping all mention of Coyne, evolution and Darwin in sarcastic religious metaphor does not make it so.
The flip side of poor design would be really really good design. There is a growing field of biomimickry where engineers examine organisms to get ideas for improving stuff made by humans. So if poor design means there is no creator, superb design must mean that there is a creator.
ReplyDeleteLaugh out loud -
ReplyDelete"So if poor design means there is no creator, superb design must mean that there is a creator."
Not so. There are other ways of achieving 'good design'. Ways which do not rely on a designer. That is exactly what the theory of evolution explains.
On a related note, there some biologists (eg, A.J. Cain) are Adaptionists - that is, they believe that all features of every living organism are optimal solutions to problems. Every feature is as good (relatively speaking) as it is possible to be, and is actively functional rather than just evolutionary baggage. This view was popular for a while in the last century, but seems not to be anymore.
Prophet Coyne writes:
ReplyDelete"If you wanted to design a flatfish, you wouldn't do it this way."
finally I can see now why evolution is true..
The problem is that Coyne totally forgets that bad design is hardly any evidence for evolution. what evolution require is not bad design, but how random mutation plus natural selection can account for novel organ or feature in animals. Furthermore, when invoking 'bad' design 'argument', there are 3 assumptions that evolutionists must make:
ReplyDelete1) The Designer is indeed perfect, God-like so to speak. However, ID does not require the designer to be divine/godly being. Dawkins' or Crick's advanced aliens suffice.
2) The body plan is indeed imperfect, which may in the end may just be as empty as junk DNA argument.
3) There is no effect of bad mutation which ruins originally perfect design. Majority of mutations have adverse effect, cancer, lost of functionality, etc which evolutionists often overlook. When ID invoke this rebuttal, skeptics often taunt with empty response "there you go, the fall argument" which refers to Christian theology while seemingly blind to its observable nature as biologists themselves can attest.
As usual another empty preaching by this University of Chicago evolutionists' prophet.
Reply to Ritchie,
ReplyDelete"Evidence which, incidentally, ID is totally lacking."
Huh??? I think ID theorists have emphasized so many times that the issues lie not in the fact of biology, but the interpretation of the fact.
It is not that ID has no evidence, but people like you refuse to accept that these facts can be explained much better through ID interpretation.
One example is of course information rich DNA and the fact that our uniform experience attest that information only comes from mind which is positive argument. And yes, mud or ice or body growth 'argument' that increase in complexity without mind is possible is fallacious so please do not waste our breath and time to rebut it again.
In order to make comments about "good design" and "perfect desigin", Coyne has to make assumptions about the designer. The assumptions are necessarily religious or metaphysical, not scientific. So where does Mr. Science get off making metaphysical claims that he won't let others make? If, as he claims, he sticks only to materialist science, then he cannot make such an non-scientific claim and hence has no evidence either for or against religion / god.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, God may not care to "design perfectly (whatever that vague term means), but may design artistically, or for variety, or to please his fancy.
Third, most religions acknowledge the existence of evil, and the Christian religion in particular affirms that evil has a corrupting influence, even on the physical. Some designs might then be the result of evil over eons of time.
regards,
#John
"Not so. There are other ways of achieving 'good design'. Ways which do not rely on a designer. That is exactly what the theory of evolution explains."
ReplyDeleteThen please, pray tell give at least one example which usually have been satisfyingly rebutted. Assertion is empty you see, I can assert that erosion can account for faces on Mt.Rushmore if people do accept empty assertion like this.
Of course, the evolution of the flat fish can easily be explained in a step-by-step fashion wherein each step confers a selective advantage!
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to evolve a flat fish, why would the "evolutioner" go to all the extra trouble, expense, and complication to come up with a mechanism to change the shape of the skull, and a scheme to move the eye to the other side of the body?
Did the eye move just a little bit during each evolutionary step or did it move all at once in one big evolutionary step?
Did the "evolutioner" have to coordinate the change of the shape of the skull with the movement of the eye? Why would evolution change the shape of the skull if it were not needed to accommodate the movement of the eye? Why was the "evolutioner" moving the eye in the first place? How many coordinated genetic changes were required to accomplish this? What is the probability that all these changes occurred at once? How would the flat fish evolve if they didn't?
In short, evolution is unsupported by any plausible explanations and evolution makes little sense even taken on its own terms.
Doublee: Did the eye move just a little bit during each evolutionary step or did it move all at once in one big evolutionary step?
ReplyDeleteGradually.
Friedman, The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry, Nature 2008.
From the University of Chicago News Office: Flatfish fossils fill in a missing link.
Doublee: Did the "evolutioner" have to coordinate the change of the shape of the skull with the movement of the eye?
ReplyDeleteNo more so than how developmental genes coordinate the wide variety of eyes and skulls fitted together as part of natural variation in human faces. Heteronectes and Amphistium are excellent examples of intermediate organisms.
Jonathan -
ReplyDelete"The problem is that Coyne totally forgets that bad design is hardly any evidence for evolution. what evolution require is not bad design, but how random mutation plus natural selection can account for novel organ or feature in animals."
The quotes which Cornelius cites in the OP are not the basis of Coyne's argument. The evidence for evolution is not just criticism of ID.
Though evidence for ID seems to consist solely of criticism of evolution...
"It is not that ID has no evidence, but people like you refuse to accept that these facts can be explained much better through ID interpretation."
But ID can explain ANY facts at all. Imagine dissecting an unknown animal for the first time and examining. No matter what was inside, ID would have an explanation: 'a designer made it that way'.
This catch-all explanation of 'Goddidit' is not a scientifically satisfactory explanation of anything for many reasons - one of which is precisely because it can potentially be used to explain ANYTHING.
You seem to be of the opinion that the fact that ID could account for any possible state of facts is a strength for ID. It is not. It is a weakness. It means it cannot be tested. Possibly. Ever.
Compare it with the notion that 'magic fairies put it there 5 seconds before you looked' ('it' being whatever evidence you are observing). You can never disprove these fairies. You can never demonstrate that these fairies DIDN'T just put it there 5 seconds ago. But this explanation is unfalsifiable. Therefore it is just not science.
"Then please, pray tell give at least one example which usually have been satisfyingly rebutted."
Off the top of my head, the eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTP6Pnjb4BI
Given that most ID proponents (and I think this includes Cornelius) believe that the Christian God is the "designer", Coyne does raise some interesting questions. Given what we know about the character of God (perfection itself etc), is the design approach congruent with what we know about God? If God had a hand in this, why did he go to such lengths to make it look as far possible to be not designed?
ReplyDeleteYes, I know...Cornelius is about to swoop and accuse me of being "religious" and "metaphysical", but these are valid reasonable questions, no matter what he thinks. Unless of course Cornelius has some compelling evidence of why a designer would choose such shoddy approaches.
John -
ReplyDelete"In order to make comments about "good design" and "perfect desigin", Coyne has to make assumptions about the designer. The assumptions are necessarily religious or metaphysical, not scientific."
What assumptions does he have to make? That the designer wouldn't/couldn't design something badly?
If we are to concede that even this is not true, then what sort of designer is ID actually proposing? An incompetent one? An unimaginative one? A stupid one? Good luck finding anyone who is actually advocating this interesting variation.
"God may not care to "design perfectly (whatever that vague term means), but may design artistically, or for variety, or to please his fancy."
The key word is 'MAY'. This is speculation. The concept of an intelligent designer is speculation. And it is speculation without hope of ever being testable. Which is fine if you want to do theology or philosophy. But not science.
"Third, most religions acknowledge the existence of evil, and the Christian religion in particular affirms that evil has a corrupting influence, even on the physical. Some designs might then be the result of evil over eons of time."
Where do I start with THAT one??!?!
The idea of 'evil' affecting direct changes to physical features/bodies is ridiculous. It doesn't matter in the slightest what most religions affirm - even the Christian one. This is not even close to being evidence.
'Evil' is simply another way of saying something is bad. What evidence is there that it is a real, tangible force which exerts a quantifiable influence on the material world? Or is this just more vacuous speculation?
CWest:
ReplyDelete"but these are valid reasonable questions"
Yes, evolutionary thought is valid. Not only that, it is powerful and compelling. Many folks find the religious/metaphysical foundation of evolution to be obvious -- a given.
"Unless of course Cornelius has some compelling evidence of why a designer would choose such shoddy approaches."
It is understandable that evolutionists, who begin with religious beliefs which they impose on science, want to continue in that vein. But let's not confuse any of this with science. If you genuinely are interested in looking at the spectrum of religious and metaphysical views (rather than merely foisting your own on everyone else as evolutionists do), then that is a different discussion and discipline.
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteYou are so confused! You are the one trying to foister your religious beliefs onto science. You are trying to insist that supernatural explanations are sometimes acceptable, or at least, should be considered.
This mindset is religous and thoroughly unscientific.
It is not a religious bias to insist that we examine the world as though miracles do not exist. It is practical and necessary for performing science.
You are just insisting that we leave the door open for miracles to be possible because you DO believe they exist.
Yours is the religious opinion! Not that of 'evolutionists'.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize so many strawman arguments were possible.
====
You are so confused! You are the one trying to foister your religious beliefs onto science. You are trying to insist that supernatural explanations are sometimes acceptable, or at least, should be considered.
====
No, I don't insist that.
====
It is not a religious bias to insist that we examine the world as though miracles do not exist. It is practical and necessary for performing science.
====
No, that's not the religious assumption we're talking about. Go back and read the post.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"No, I don't insist that."
So we can at least agree that it is not scientific to challenge MN? It is perfectly scientific to accept MN in the process of performing science, and that this insistence is not an opinion merely born of religious opinion? Can we please clarify that once and for all...
"No, that's not the religious assumption we're talking about. Go back and read the post."
If you are referring to the assumption that 'a designer would not have designed anything poorly' then this is not a fair accusation to make to 'evolutionists'. The theory of evolution is not based on such assumptions, nor does it necessitate them. It is simply not a claim the theory of evolution has anything to do with.
What you have done is quote-mined a biologist who accepts evolution, taken his opinions on ID, and then assumed the theory of evolution is based on such opinions.
But it is not. So it is an irrelevant charge to lay at the door of 'evolutionists'.
CWest: ""Unless of course Cornelius has some compelling evidence of why a designer would choose such shoddy approaches."
ReplyDeleteCornelius: "It is understandable that evolutionists, who begin with religious beliefs which they impose on science, want to continue in that vein."
What exactly is the religious belief referred to here? Can you articulate it for us? And what religion is being ascribed to?
Is it a religious belief to ponder how (if a designer exists) may have conducted the design process - and to evaluate that against established human-oriented design standards?
If this is being religious, how do you approach such questions Cornelius? Because by inference you claim that you do not have a religious/metaphysical stance - but instead take a "pure" scientific viewpoint. What would an example of this kind of science look like?
The explanation is that there are many, countless designers. It's almost the same as car designs. You have brands (Ford, GM Chrysler, Toyota, etc.) and models. Each brand / model has many designers, organized to design every part of the car. These designers are supervised by a higher design department that ensures all parts will work well together. There is another design organization on top of the previous one that decides if the model will sell well. Even with this design organization, some cars are poorly designed; others are a hit, like the Ford Mustang. Bad designs tend to disappear. Successful designs get updates for next year's model. Designers are not perfect. Something similar happens in nature.
ReplyDeleteRobert: The explanation is that there are many, countless designers.
ReplyDeleteExcept with biological 'design', every species has a separate designer who works in complete isolation. Designers can't talk or even look at each other's design. So when the small rodent designer (who doesn't talk to other rodent designers) finds an open niche as a flying insectivore, he doesn't use off-the-shelf feathers (because he doesn't even notice the existence of feathers), but makes ad hoc adaptations to phalanges and skin.
Humans, of course, look at one another's designs. If one human sees his neighbor using feathers, the human adapts them to the design. Of course, that would violate the nested hierarchy.
Zachriel: "Except with biological 'design', every species has a separate designer who works in complete isolation. Designers can't talk or even look at each other's design."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that? What I infer is that every species has a separate group of designers who work within the limits imposed by the upper design's hierarchy. That superior hierarchy must know about the other species' designs, so they are compatible with a self sustained ecosystem.
CWest:
ReplyDelete"What exactly is the religious belief referred to here? Can you articulate it for us? And what religion is being ascribed to? "
For a primer, please see:
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_6_The_fact
For a longer discussion see *Science's Blind Spot*.
What religion? You could ask this question about myriad religious and metaphysical beliefs and there would be no easy answer. Most beliefs do not neatly fall into a single religion. But you can see *Science's Blind Spot* for an introduction to this.
"Is it a religious belief to ponder how (if a designer exists) may have conducted the design process - and to evaluate that against established human-oriented design standards? "
May have? Where did you get the "may have"? Do you think the evolution genre is full of religious claims about god and metaphysical claims about design because evolutionists are considering mere conjecture? Do you think that for centuries evolutionists have been making the same truth claims, and they all just happened to mistakenly make these truth claims when they all really meant to say "may have"?
" If this is being religious, how do you approach such questions Cornelius? Because by inference you claim that you do not have a religious/metaphysical stance - but instead take a "pure" scientific viewpoint. "
Unlike evolutionists, I do not impose my religion on you.
" What would an example of this kind of science look like? "
For starters, you can look at Francis Bacon. Also the semi empiricists, such as modeled by Boyle, Newton and others of the 17th c Royal Society.
Robert: What I infer is that every species has a separate group of designers who work within the limits imposed by the upper design's hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteIn science, what counts is what you can show. And we can show that organisms are what they are because of what they were. Common Descent.
CWest: "Is it a religious belief to ponder how (if a designer exists) may have conducted the design process - and to evaluate that against established human-oriented design standards? "
ReplyDeleteCorneliuis: "May have? Where did you get the "may have"? Do you think the evolution genre is full of religious claims about god and metaphysical claims about design because evolutionists are considering mere conjecture? Do you think that for centuries evolutionists have been making the same truth claims, and they all just happened to mistakenly make these truth claims when they all really meant to say "may have"?
The Designer hypothesis "May Have" comes from the ID movement, not from evolution. It is ID proponents that suggest there was/is a Designer who has in some fashion shaped/designed the evolution of species. Intelligent Design infers an Intelligent Designer.
Zachriel: "In science, what counts is what you can show. And we can show that organisms are what they are because of what they were. Common Descent."
ReplyDeleteScience cannot show there is common descent. With common descent from a single cell it is impossible to build life on Earth as we know it. You need countless elements, factors, species, etc., designed to work together as a whole, all put at specific times and places to make it happen. Definition of science should change from: "How it evolved?: to: "How it was made?"
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteFrom darwinspredications:
"The key to understanding evolutionary thinking is to understand why evolutionists believe their theory is a fact. They arrive at this remarkable conclusion by the process of elimination... The process of elimination is a method of reasoning that concludes a hypothesis is true by falsifying all the alternatives."
WHAT?!!?!???!?!
Don't you feel the slightest shame at all in spreading such ridiculous falsehoods?! Evolutionary thinking is most emphatically NOT just based on falsifying the alternatives! That would be unscientific and scandalous. It is based on the fact that the evidence supports the theory!
The only theory which seeks to prove itself by falsifying the competing theory is ID.
And your own blog site is a good example of it. I don't mean to get personal, but when do you ever present positive evidence for any theory of biology? All you do is criticise the theory of evolution. Whatever theory you do support, you are not helping to make its case by just having a go at the opposition. As you yourself note, this is unscientific.
"What religion? You could ask this question about myriad religious and metaphysical beliefs and there would be no easy answer."
Another dodge.
Let me ask you this - how do you reconcile the idea of religious scientists who accept evolution?
There are plenty of them. These are people who fully believe there is a God, but one who works through natural processes! Understanding natural processes is just understanding the toolkit of God. So understanding the theory of evolution is to simply understand how God brought about the diversity of life we see today.
Such a position is, for what it is worth, reasonable. It is also unnecessary, as any atheist will point out - we don't NEED to speculate a God, because natural laws will account for evolution well enough on their own. But if you WANT to speculate a divine overseer (who does NOT interfere by any supernatural means) then you may. The theory of evolution does not rule this out. The ONLY stipulation mandated by the theory of evolution (like every other theory of science) is that the supernatural is never used to account for natural phenomenon.
What do you think of such people? How can it be that the theory of evolution is a religious position, and yet compatible with the beliefs of both atheists and theists of many stripes?
Surely by your line of logic, such beliefs are irreconcilable? Surely this wouldn't make sense via your train of logic? How do you account for this?
Robert -
ReplyDelete"Science cannot show there is common descent. With common descent from a single cell it is impossible to build life on Earth as we know it. You need countless elements, factors, species, etc., designed to work together as a whole, all put at specific times and places to make it happen."
That's just an argument from ignorance, I'm afraid. Common descent is perfectly possible and is well evidenced. Your inability to understand how it could work is not a refutation.
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteJust as an aside, I was actually curious to read a review of your book Science's Blind Spot. So I googled it, looking for a review.
But all the reviews I can find of your book are from overtly Christian-biased websites (apart from a customer review on amazon).
I was wondering if you knew whether your totally-scientific-and-not-at-all-religious book was reviewed anywhere other than religious sites?
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI'[m not talking about good design. I'm talking about superb, or even optimal design. Things like the bumps on a humpback whale's flippers, or a perfectly streamlined boxfish, or a beetle carapice that makes a nifty desalininzation plant, or the self cleaning lotus petal, or the adhesive pads on a gecko's feet.
laugh out loud -
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the answer remains the same. No matter how ingenious a natural feature seems, it can still come about through the gradual improvements of random mutation and natural selection, and we have no reason to doubt that this is exactly how it happened.
CWest:
ReplyDelete"The Designer hypothesis "May Have" comes from the ID movement, not from evolution. It is ID proponents that suggest there was/is a Designer who has in some fashion shaped/designed the evolution of species. Intelligent Design infers an Intelligent Designer."
No, read the quote again. This does not come from ID.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete=============
"The key to understanding evolutionary thinking is to understand why evolutionists believe their theory is a fact. They arrive at this remarkable conclusion by the process of elimination... The process of elimination is a method of reasoning that concludes a hypothesis is true by falsifying all the alternatives."
WHAT?!!?!???!?!
Don't you feel the slightest shame at all in spreading such ridiculous falsehoods?!
=============
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/15/0901109106.abstract
"[81:3-85:3]" HIlarious
ReplyDeleteRitchie: "That's just an argument from ignorance, I'm afraid. Common descent is perfectly possible and is well evidenced."
ReplyDeleteIt's an argument from the best inference according to my experience as a computer programmer. There is no way, no matter the billions of years evolutionists are giving to it, that a thing like the DNA or the ribosome (to mention only 2) arises by blind random mutations and/or natural selection. The DNA carries a code so advanced that we are only starting to understand it and the ribosome works as a machine folding a protein string into a precise 3D form. Advanced computer-like code found in the DNA and the ribosome require intelligence. Darwin didn't know anything about the DNA or the ribosome when "The Origin of Species" was published. All cells in living beings - even the most primitive - have DNA = Common Design. So, sorry; I see design everywhere. Of course, many things occur by chance; and one of the main objectives of ID is to detect whether or not an event occurred by chance. Please read "Signature in the Cell" by Dr. Stephen Meyer or "The Design Inference" by Dr. William Dembski.
Cornelius: "No, read the quote again. This does not come from ID."
ReplyDeleteDo you not think that an intelligent designer is implied by ID?
What DO you believe Cornelius?
@ Richie:
ReplyDelete"Though evidence for ID seems to consist solely of criticism of evolution..."
---> What is wrong with that? Darwin repeatedly use theological argument "since God would not do it this way, therefore it is evolution." An evidence against evolution is in a sense evidence for design since according to Law of Excluded Middle, it is either evolved or it is created, similar logic that Coyne used in this one. Furthermore, the case made in Signature in the Cell is pretty much positive case for ID rather than criticism of evolution per se.
"But ID can explain ANY facts at all. Imagine dissecting an unknown animal for the first time and examining. No matter what was inside, ID would have an explanation: 'a designer made it that way. This catch-all explanation of 'Goddidit' is not a scientifically satisfactory explanation of anything for many reasons - one of which is precisely because it can potentially be used to explain ANYTHING.
You seem to be of the opinion that the fact that ID could account for any possible state of facts is a strength for ID. It is not. It is a weakness. It means it cannot be tested."
---> See this extensive rebuttal against demarcation argument and definition what is science or not by Meyer. This is his field in philosophy of science so you can not claim he is ignorant. It maybe to deep for people like you though.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2834
Similar case can be made against evolution. If evolutionists see an organ, he will reason "it evolved that way" sometimes without providing plausible mechanism for it. Evolution is also used to explain everything anyway and often it is unsatisfactorily shallow like evolutionary psychology. Furthermore, ID theorists hardly approach anything and claim 'Goddidit' like what you claim, electron still flow because of electric field and masses are falling because of curvature in time and space, this is common failure of people like you to distinguish empirical science with historical science.
I find it amusing always people can claim in one post that ID is not testable and then purportedly show that it has been tested and found to be false. Perhaps an introductory lesson in logic is needed.
"Off the top of my head, the eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTP6Pnjb4BI"
--> Well, your lack of familiarity of the rebuttal is telling. See Berlinksi mutilate Dawkins' fact free fairy tale in this one.
http://www.discovery.org/a/132
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCWest:
ReplyDelete"Do you not think that an intelligent designer is implied by ID?"
It looks like you're buying evolution's metaphysic. Perhaps this will help:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-and-recurrent-laryngeal.html
@Ritchie
ReplyDelete"I'm afraid the answer remains the same. No matter how ingenious a natural feature seems, it can still come about through the gradual improvements of random mutation and natural selection, and we have no reason to doubt that this is exactly how it happened."
---> And apparently no reason needed to believe that it is exactly happened that way.
"Just as an aside, I was actually curious to read a review of your book Science's Blind Spot. So I googled it, looking for a review.
But all the reviews I can find of your book are from overtly Christian-biased websites (apart from a customer review on amazon).
I was wondering if you knew whether your totally-scientific-and-not-at-all-religious book was reviewed anywhere other than religious sites?"
---> The best way is of course to purchase to book and think and search answer for yourselves. Reading review of ID theorists book from evolutionists' website is often misleading anyway since some of them proudly state the fact that they have not read and will never read the book and has the courage to 'rebut' it. So what if the book is mainly reviewed in Christian websites? ID indeed has strong theological implication although unlike creationism it does not start from religious thinking contrary to what many evolutionist keep promulgating.
Cornelius: "It looks like you're buying evolution's metaphysic. Perhaps this will help:..."
ReplyDeleteThis is pure absurdity. You won't even answer what is really a very basic question (hope you don't do this to your students!). Your arguments, communication style and thinking processes are so convoluted and tautological that frankly I haven't got the foggiest idea anymore what you are trying to say. But given that you seem to be quite alone in these ideas (even within the ID community) I'm beginning to realize it's probably not worth the effort to understand you.
@Ritchie
ReplyDeleteI personally think that those who call themselves theistic evolutionists are not honest with their belief system. I agree with Dawkins, Dennet and many more on this (which is very rare). A general conclusion that Darwin wish to make in Origin of Species is simple, a creator is superfluous concept, unnecessary at best, damaging at worst.
Of course, majority of evolutionists try to play down strong atheistic implication of Darwin's hypothesis so that it is more palatable to general populace.
CWest:
ReplyDelete"Do you not think that an intelligent designer is implied by ID? ... You won't even answer what is really a very basic question"
Obviously the answer is yes, but so what? You seem to attach some significance to your question that is not apparent. What's the point?
Robert: It's an argument from the best inference according to my experience as a computer programmer. There is no way, no matter the billions of years evolutionists are giving to it, that a thing like the DNA or the ribosome (to mention only 2) arises by blind random mutations and/or natural selection.
ReplyDeleteScience requires specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in a hypothesis. Your "inference" is just an argument from incredulity.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"ME - Don't you feel the slightest shame at all in spreading such ridiculous falsehoods?!
YOU - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/15/0901109106.abstract"
I am totally at a loss here. The link you provided does not support your claim whatsoever.
The theory of evolution is absolutely NOT based on falsifying ID as a competing theory. I am totally at a loss to see how this could be a genuine mistake or misunderstanding on your part, and can only conclude it is a deliberate lie. Surely you know better?
Robert -
ReplyDelete"It's an argument from the best inference according to my experience as a computer programmer."
I didn't mean 'ignorance' as an insulting term. But a computer programmer is not a biologist. You are dealing with codes that HAVE been purposefully designed. If you wish to know how natural features came to exist without design, then the material for further reading is out there.
"The DNA carries a code so advanced that we are only starting to understand it"
It does now. But it needn't have started that way. It has had 4 billions years to evolve...
"and the ribosome works as a machine folding a protein string into a precise 3D form."
Likewise. No-one is claiming that these mechanisms were in place in the very first organism. They simply evolved through time.
Jonathan -
ReplyDelete"What is wrong with that?...An evidence against evolution is in a sense evidence for design since according to Law of Excluded Middle, it is either evolved or it is created."
Such thinking is totally unscientific. A theory needs to explain the evidence on its own merit. It cannot just reply on criticizing a competing theory because they might BOTH be wrong. Every theory needs to actively account for the evidence. If you play this 'last man standing' game, then you might still end up with a theory which is unsupported by evidence!
"Darwin repeatedly use theological argument "since God would not do it this way, therefore it is evolution." "
No he didn't. He might have made remarks to the effect that he found it difficult to see why God would create certain creatures/features, but such observations were not the basis of his theory! His theory was built on all the evidence he spent decades collecting.
The same with Coyne above! Cornelius has simply taken a few comments Coyne has made about ID and left us to conclude that these form the basis of his argument! They do not! And I find this a sly and dishonest tactic.
"Furthermore, the case made in Signature in the Cell is pretty much positive case for ID rather than criticism of evolution per se."
Your faith in a single book is both unfounded and naive. The book was only well recieved in ID and religious circles. Not scientific ones. The book is based on the premise that 'life is really complicated - therefore it is designed', which is nonsense. Complexity does not demonstrate intent. Biology professor and co-president of the BioLogos Foundation, Darrel Falk said that the book was an example of why he could not support ID.
"See this extensive rebuttal against demarcation argument and definition what is science or not by Meyer. This is his field in philosophy of science so you can not claim he is ignorant."
I haven't got time at the moment, but I will look through it later. I will add however, that I certainly can claim Meyer is biased on this matter! He is a pivotal character in the ID movement, and though a former academic philosopher of science, his scientific output is virtually nothing. Popularist books for mass consumption are not scientific literature.
"Evolution is also used to explain everything anyway and often it is unsatisfactorily shallow like evolutionary psychology. "
Evolution makes very specific predictions which may be right and may be wrong. It is highly falsifiable. The fact that it actually hasn't BEEN falsified is testament to the fact that it is probably true!
"Furthermore, ID theorists hardly approach anything and claim 'Goddidit' like what you claim,"
The only thing which distinguishes ID from any naturalistic theory of biology is the intervention of a supernatural being. How is this not 'Goddidit'?
(cont)
ReplyDelete"I find it amusing always people can claim in one post that ID is not testable and then purportedly show that it has been tested and found to be false."
I have never made the latter claim. What are you talking about?
"Well, your lack of familiarity of the rebuttal is telling. See Berlinksi mutilate Dawkins' fact free fairy tale in this one."
If you give me a few hours, I can post an exhaustive list of peer-reviewed scientific papers detailing the evolution of the eye.
"And apparently no reason needed to believe that it is exactly happened that way."
No? Other than the fact that that it is an explanation built on processes we know ACTUALLY EXIST. Unlike ghosts and fairies and gods and demons...
"Reading review of ID theorists book from evolutionists' website is often misleading anyway since some of them proudly state the fact that they have not read and will never read the book and has the courage to 'rebut' it."
I was not looking to read a review of it from an 'evolutionists' website'. I was looking to read a review of it from impartial and reputable reviewers and independent literary sites. The fact that it only appears on site with an overt Christian bias is telling.
"So what if the book is mainly reviewed in Christian websites? ID indeed has strong theological implication although unlike creationism it does not start from religious thinking contrary to what many evolutionist keep promulgating."
Well, Cornelius has always denied he is an ID-er - or an least always avoided saying so. He presents himself as a man with no religious bias whatsoever and who talks from a position of absolute scientific impartiality. In fact, this is all highly questionable. He is the one whose opinions are forged by religion, not 'evolutionists'.
"Of course, majority of evolutionists try to play down strong atheistic implication of Darwin's hypothesis so that it is more palatable to general populace."
Darwin's THEORY has no atheistic implications. It merely renders theological explanations of biological phenomena unnecessary.
"I personally think that those who call themselves theistic evolutionists are not honest with their belief system."
Not honest how, exactly?
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"Obviously the answer is yes, but so what? You seem to attach some significance to your question that is not apparent. What's the point?"
I believe the point is that this rather undermines your pretense to come across as scientifically impartial and totally unbiased by religion.
Ritchie: "I believe the point is that this rather undermines your pretense to come across as scientifically impartial and totally unbiased by religion."
ReplyDeleteExactly. Although apparently Cornelius gets a special exemption from the "religion drives science" mantra from his own (professed) religious views. We are supposed to believe that only he does pure "science". Oddly, I think Cornelius may be genuinely blind to this.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete=========
"ME - Don't you feel the slightest shame at all in spreading such ridiculous falsehoods?!
YOU - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/15/0901109106.abstract"
=========
So evolutionary logic uses likelihood ratios, but it actually doesn't so this is a ridiculous falsehood. Ritchie you've outdone yourself.
CWest:
ReplyDelete========
Ritchie: "I believe the point is that this rather undermines your pretense to come across as scientifically impartial and totally unbiased by religion."
Exactly.
========
How so?
Jonathan: An evidence against evolution is in a sense evidence for design since according to Law of Excluded Middle, it is either evolved or it is created.
ReplyDeleteRitchie: Such thinking is totally unscientific.
Actually, it's logically fallacious. The Law of the Excluded Middle only works if all the possible alternatives have been considered. Design and evolution do not represent every possibility. As Ritchie points out "they might BOTH be wrong."
Cornelius Hunter: The process of elimination is a method of reasoning that concludes a hypothesis is true by falsifying all the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteFor support, you cite Sober, Did Darwin write the Origin backwards?, PNAS 2009. However, that paper merely points out that there are two mutually supporting aspects of the Theory of Evolution; Common Descent and Natural Selection. Common Descent can largely stand on its own without regard to the mechanism of divergence, hence the author concludes Origin is evidentially backwards, though in the right causal order.
@Zachriel @Ritchie
ReplyDeleteCare to suggest what is the other alternative? In ultimate sense, it is either created (by an intelligent agent, supernatural or not) or evolved(through either deterministic law or pure chance or a mix of those two). Darwin himself along with other evolutionists like Coyne either explicitly or implicitly hold to principle when attacking ID or creationism, since it is not created, it surely is evolved without caring to suggest another alternative.
"No? Other than the fact that that it is an explanation built on processes we know ACTUALLY EXIST. Unlike ghosts and fairies and gods and demons..."
Processes such as?? The idea of macroevolution being the sum of microevolution which is driven by random mutation and natural selection is obsolete as admitted by James Shapiro at Fermilab.
"Darwin's THEORY has no atheistic implications. It merely renders theological explanations of biological phenomena unnecessary."
Is not that the point? By rendering supernatural as superfluous explanation, it equates belief in supernatural being or theism to be lacking of basis in nature or reality. It suggests even if that believers in such proposition is merely faith head.
"Popularist books for mass consumption are not scientific literature."
I agree and can say the same about Ancestor's Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable and such books also.
"Complexity does not demonstrate intent. Biology professor and co-president of the BioLogos Foundation, Darrel Falk said that the book was an example of why he could not support ID."
Not complexity, information. If it can be established information to arise from purely natural cause, the whole case of ID will collapse.
"The only thing which distinguishes ID from any naturalistic theory of biology is the intervention of a supernatural being. How is this not 'Goddidit'?"
Huh? supernatural? It is up to Meyer's other IDers or those creationists to put their god as the designer, it is other to suggest that ID relies on supernatural. Like I said, claiming aliens did it, make Dawkins and Crick in a sense an IDer whether they like it or not. ID in itself never try to identify the designer despite repeated push by evolutionists or fundamentalist creationists to do that.
"Your faith in a single book is both unfounded and naive. The book was only well recieved in ID and religious circles. Not scientific ones."
Since when a number of book determine the quality of argument, I can swallow all Ptolemian scroll and reach nowhere in particular. Quantity of books do not establish the quality of argument. It is well-received by those outside ID base anyway, see this review:
http://www.signatureinthecell.com/quotes.php
"The book is based on the premise that 'life is really complicated - therefore it is designed', which is nonsense."
In what way it is nonsense, especially if the complexity is functional specified complexity aka information? Our observation has never established information (not order/complexity only) to have any purely natural cause while intelligent has repeatedly form information. To suggest that further research will show it is possible is not tenable since it argues from what we do not know, while honest man will argue from what we at present know.
Jonathan: Care to suggest what is the other alternative?
ReplyDeleteThat isn't necessary to point out that your Excluded Middle Argument was fallacious.
Jonathan: In ultimate sense, it is either created (by an intelligent agent, supernatural or not) or evolved(through either deterministic law or pure chance or a mix of those two).
Or didn't evolve, but was due to some other non-intelligent process, including those no one has dreamed of yet. Even the term "evoluton" isn't a static variable, but encompasses a wide variety of different possible theories.
Jonathan: Darwin himself along with other evolutionists like Coyne either explicitly or implicitly hold to principle when attacking ID or creationism, since it is not created, it surely is evolved without caring to suggest another alternative.
Darwin provided a well-supported scientific theory. Coyne argues against commonly held views.
Jonathan: The idea of macroevolution being the sum of microevolution which is driven by random mutation and natural selection is obsolete as admitted by James Shapiro at Fermilab.
Simlistic views of evolution cannot explain everything about the history of life. So?
Jonathan: By rendering supernatural as superfluous explanation, it equates belief in supernatural being or theism to be lacking of basis in nature or reality.
Sort of like gravity replacing angels pushing planets on crystal spheres.
Jonathan: Not complexity, information. If it can be established information to arise from purely natural cause, the whole case of ID will collapse.
We would need to know what you mean by "information," but all the various ID incarnations are either ambiguous or can be generated by evolutionary processes.
Jonathan: In what way it is nonsense, especially if the complexity is functional specified complexity aka information?
Because evolutionary processes can generate functional complex systems.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"So evolutionary logic uses likelihood ratios, but it actually doesn't so this is a ridiculous falsehood. Ritchie you've outdone yourself."
The link you cited shows us absolutely nothing about the likelihood of evolution being related to the likelihood of ID, or any other competing theory of biology.
Jonathan -
ReplyDelete"Care to suggest what is the other alternative?"
Ummm, okay. How about - it's all random chance! There is no force guiding the development of life. Complex features and organs really can appear fully formed in a single generation by staggeringly unlikely combinations of spontaneous mutations.
How's that? That's a new hypothesis. It also accounts for absolutely any possible piece of evidence we may discover and therefore is unfalsifiable. But then so is ID...
"Processes such as??"
Off the top of my head, horizontal gene transfer, balancing selection, deleterious variation and genetic drift...
"Is not that the point? By rendering supernatural as superfluous explanation, it equates belief in supernatural being or theism to be lacking of basis in nature or reality."
Well, belief in the supernatural DOES lack a basis in scientific evidence. It is not a religious proposition to say so. It is merely pointing out a fact.
The supernatural is unnecessary as an explanation for biological phenomenon. But it might still be real. Is it? Science simply has no way to establish that.
Believe in the supernatural if you want to. But do not claim that science supports such ideas, because it does not.
"I agree and can say the same about Ancestor's Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable and such books also."
Absolutely. I agree. Such books are simply an attempt to make the dense science of peer-reviewed literature readable to the general public.
As an aside, what peer-reviewed scientific literature is there in active support of ID? I know of precisely none.
"Like I said, claiming aliens did it, make Dawkins and Crick in a sense an IDer whether they like it or not."
What? When did they ever say aliens did it?!
"ID in itself never try to identify the designer despite repeated push by evolutionists or fundamentalist creationists to do that."
ID tries never to identify the designer because they try to pretend that what they are doing is science. And not religion. Which is not true, on both counts.
No matter whether this 'Intelligent Designer' is God, Zeus, or Allah's stupid little brother, ultimately he/she/it must be supernatural. And that is all it takes to prove such claims as the ones ID makes as unscientific.
Though I have to say, I don't ever actually hear ID-ers actively stating that God ISN'T the designer. They never seem to put much energy into decrying the theological claims of Creationists.
Why is that, exactly?
"Since when a number of book determine the quality of argument, I can swallow all Ptolemian scroll and reach nowhere in particular."
Pardon?
"Quantity of books do not establish the quality of argument."
In effect, true. But the fact that Stephen Meyer is not an active, productive scientist does rather hamstring any claim that his book is likely to be a work of great scientific insight. If he is such a brilliant, visionary scientist, why doesn't he actually do some science and publish some articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals? This IS science. It is what scientists do. And it is a reasonable way of measuring any given scientist's productive output.
"In what way it is nonsense, especially if the complexity is functional specified complexity aka information?"
I can't improve on what Zachriel said: Because evolutionary processes can generate functional complex systems.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete" - Ritchie: "I believe the point is that this rather undermines your pretense to come across as scientifically impartial and totally unbiased by religion."
- How so?"
Well, to be blunt, though I find your logic convoluted and your understanding of science in general and evolution in particular to be very confused, the one thing you have been consistent on throughout my time visiting your site is your insistance that evolution is driven by religion.
You have given the impression that your own understanding of science is impartial and unclouded by religious belief. But if you do believe in a supernatural designer to do the designing, how is this not a religious belief?
Is the basis of your disagreement with evolution not really the fact that it does not make the same fundamental metaphysical assumptions that you do?
Let me, for a moment, demonstrate with an example. I'm sure you won't be shocked to hear I've debated with many theists on the internet, and one extremely common misconception is that atheism is the CERTAIN belief that there is no God. And by extension, that it is a religious belief.
However, such is not the case. I am an atheist, but that does not mean I rule out as impossible the existence of a God. It only means that I do not actively believe in one, given the fact that there is no evidence for one.
But many people I have spoken to sincerely believe that my atheism is as much a position of religious faith as their theist belief.
I suppose I can understand it. They believe in God. I do not. So if their belief in God is a statement of religious faith, it kinda seems intuitive that my lack of such belief would be too. Intuitive, but wrong.
I see your position as a much broader, more complex version of this same misconception. Science, like atheism, cannot accept anything without evidence.
A supernatural designer, for instance. What is the evidence that such a being exists? Only the fact that the assumption of its existence will account for phenomena which are otherwise mysterious. But given the fact that this assumption accounts for ANY CONCEIVABLE evidence, this fact alone is rather less than convincing.
The theory of evolution, or any other theory of science, is no more a theory based on religious opinion than atheism is.
I beleive it is your own belief in an Intelligent Designer which makes science's lack of belief in such a being seem like a religious proposition by comparison.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"I beleive it is your own belief in an Intelligent Designer which makes science's lack of belief in such a being seem like a religious proposition by comparison."
It is astonishing how evolutionists openly and constantly make religious claims, and when it is pointed out they somehow locate the religion in the messenger. I guess offense is the best (or perhaps only in this case) defense.
Zach:
ReplyDelete=====
For support, you cite Sober, Did Darwin write the Origin backwards?, PNAS 2009. However, that paper merely points out that there are two mutually supporting aspects of the Theory of Evolution; Common Descent and Natural Selection. Common Descent can largely stand on its own without regard to the mechanism of divergence, hence the author concludes Origin is evidentially backwards, though in the right causal order.
====
You need to read more carefully. That is a fundamental misread of the paper. Better yet, read Sober's tome *Evidence and Evolution* which goes into this in much greater detail.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"It is astonishing how evolutionists openly and constantly make religious claims, and when it is pointed out they somehow locate the religion in the messenger. I guess offense is the best (or perhaps only in this case) defense."
My whole point it that I am not making religious claims. Not when I advocate atheism when I debate with theists, and not when I advocate TOE when I debate here with you.
You however, who do believe in an 'Intelligent Designer' ARE making religious claims. The whole basis of your objection to TOE is that it fails to accommodate religious propositions which you take for granted (specifically the proposition that miracles/divine intervention are possible).
TOE does not declare 'there is DEFINITELY no Intelligent Designer' any more than atheism declares 'there is DEFINITELY no God'. Though both mistakes may be widely believed, and for the same reasons.
Neither does the theory of evolution declare 'If there was an Intelligent Designer, he/she/it would do X and not Z'. You may have found biologists such as Coyne who have said this, but in doing so they are simply voicing their objections to ID, not explaining the basis for TOE.
I'm sure I could find quotes from Coyne or Dawkins explaining their opinions on what food they like to eat. That doesn't mean such opinions are the basis of the theories they advocate.
Cornelius Hunter: The process of elimination is a method of reasoning that concludes a hypothesis is true by falsifying all the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: For support, you cite Sober, Did Darwin write the Origin backwards?, PNAS 2009. However, that paper merely points out that there are two mutually supporting aspects of the Theory of Evolution; Common Descent and Natural Selection. Common Descent can largely stand on its own without regard to the mechanism of divergence, hence the author concludes Origin is evidentially backwards, though in the right causal order.
Cornelius Hunter: You need to read more carefully. That is a fundamental misread of the paper.
That's very odd—because it was a straightforward paraphrase of the paper's conclusion.
Sober: It is because of common ancestry that facts about the history of natural selection become knowable.
He says the history of natural selection is knowable because of common descent. And he repeatedly cites what he considers strong support for common ancestry.
Sober: Common ancestry is not an unrelated add-on that supplements Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection; rather, common ancestry provides a framework within which hypotheses about natural selection can be tested. So, did Darwin write the Origin backwards? The book is in the right causal order; but evidentially, it is backwards.
As I have repeatedly suggested, to understand the mechanisms of adaptation, it is best to start by establishing Common Descent.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"You however, who do believe in an 'Intelligent Designer' ARE making religious claims. "
But of course I never said that, but hey, that never stopped evolutionists. Please show me a single religious claim I made.
Cornelius: "But of course I never said that, but hey, that never stopped evolutionists. Please show me a single religious claim I made."
ReplyDeleteActually Cornelius, you rather did say something along these lines, not in the OP, but nevertheless...
Cwest: "Do you not think that an intelligent designer is implied by ID? ... You won't even answer what is really a very basic question"
Cornelius: "Obviously the answer is yes, but so what? You seem to attach some significance to your question that is not apparent. What's the point?"
Is it not also true that you think this Designer is the Christian God? Would this not qualify then for a "religious" claim? Or are you going to duck and weave out of this like you normally do?
The problem here is that you can't have it both ways. You cannot accuse "evolutionists" of having an a priori "religious" belief and somehow deny that your own religious background, worldview, belief system etc is in some way not a factor in how you approach evolution and science in general. It's disingenous at best.
CWest:
ReplyDelete"Is it not also true that you think this Designer is the Christian God? Would this not qualify then for a "religious" claim? Or are you going to duck and weave out of this like you normally do?"
Unbelieveable. You asked me what is implied by ID, and now suddenly you have me making religious claims?! Duck and weave? Duck and weave what?
But this is what evolution is all about. Hypocritical accusations with no substance. Evolutionists make explicit metaphysical and religious claims, and then have the temerity to blame you for it when you point it out. Utterly amazing.
CWest, please point out a single religious claim I've made.
Cornelius: "Unbelieveable. You asked me what is implied by ID, and now suddenly you have me making religious claims?! Duck and weave? Duck and weave what?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I firmly believe you are making a religious claim. You accept that there is a Designer - you have said as such. Furthermore, it is an easy inference (given that you are a self-professed Christian and teach at a Bible college) that you belive said Designer is the Christian God (even if you refuse to say it yourself). I do not doubt for a single minute that this worldview influences how you approach evolution and science.
(FWIW, I suppose your socratic style of rhtetorical questioning in response to simple questions might work well in the classroom, but frankly it's irritating on a blog and totally misplaced - and frankly makes you come across as a major BS-er).
CWest:
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing religious beliefs with religious and metaphysical claims. I asked you to point out a single religious claim, but of course there are none, because I make none. My religious beliefs leave me scientifically free. Christians believe all kinds of things about origins. I do not impose my religion on my science as evolutionists do.
Cornelius: "My religious beliefs leave me scientifically free. Christians believe all kinds of things about origins. I do not impose my religion on my science as evolutionists do."
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to say that and believe it. It is after all your blog. I'm also free not to believe you either.
I guess time will tell if you argument holds up. Not being unkind but you do seem rather a lone voice with the "religion drives science" idea, even within the ID community.
Ultimately what is really going to change peoples views on evolution (assuming it needs it of course), is that it is replaced by another theory. From what I understand of the history of science (e.g., big bang theory etc) is that is how it works. One paradigm replaces another. It's a shame you don't wish to focus your energies on that, but seem obsessed (yes, that's the right word) on what you believe is a dead theory. Whatever your strategy is (who knows?) it does not appear to be very effective (e.g., how many people have you persuaded with you argument, particularly non-Christians?). But again time will tell.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"please point out a single religious claim I've made."
You have criticized the notion of science (specifically 'evolutionists') mandating methodological naturalism.
Do you accept this is true, or do you want literal quotes?
NOT to mandate methodological naturalism is basically to allow that miracles happen.
This is a religious claim.
Cornelius said: "My religious beliefs leave me scientifically free. Christians believe all kinds of things about origins. I do not impose my religion on my science as evolutionists do."
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter - what is the science that you do ("my science"). I'm aware that you've published books (papers too?) and that you are an occassional instructor at a Bible college.
But are you actively involved in research of any kind? Or is your science mostly what you do on this blog?
The problem with Coyne's logic is simple: Darwin's theory claims that a very specific mechanism, random mutation plus natural selection (RM+NS), can make all of these organisms he's discussing. Scientifically, the evidence for/against that claim is all that matters.
ReplyDeleteBut to Coyne, his personal distaste at the idea that designers would make the flatfish overrides any empirical problems with RM+NS, and leaves Darwinian evolution as the only viable explanation.
That isn't really the way scientific theories are suppose to be verified, but Coyne apparently isn't bothered by that anywhere near to the degree he's bothered by the idea that designers wouldn't correct every imperfection, design every species from scratch, or whatever other expectations he gathered somewhere (Sunday School?).
Science provides us no evidence that designers ever exhibit these utopian characteristics. But again — what of scientific evidence?
Coyne is not really interested in whether Darwin's thesis is true, but rather in winning a culture war against the religious. Admitting that that's what he's doing is, of course, counterproductive to winning the war, so he has to insist that his position and his means of arriving at it are science-based.
—Darel Rex Finley, http://alienryderflex.com
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"You have criticized the notion of science (specifically 'evolutionists') mandating methodological naturalism."
No, the problem is not mandating MN, the problem is they won't come clean on what they mean (because that would reveal the underlying metaphysic).
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"No, the problem is not mandating MN, the problem is they won't come clean on what they mean (because that would reveal the underlying metaphysic)."
How so? What do you think this metaphysic IS?