Didier Raoult, whom even the evolutionists admit is “the most productive and influential microbiologist in France,” explains that Charles Darwin “was a priest,” in a personal profile story this week.
Raoult’s popular book, Dépasser Darwin (Beyond Darwin) questions several tenets of modern evolutionary theory, including the importance of natural selection. Evolution’s tree of life, explains Raoult, should be replaced by a network of interconnected species.
And how do evolutionists respond? David Moreira of the University of Paris-Sud in Orsay explains that “It’s dangerous to say those things.” It’s not that Raoult is wrong, but that he provides creationist groups with ammunition. As usual, evolutionary dogma takes precedence over science.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh?
ReplyDeleteFor evolutionists, anyone who does not accept their bogus truth claims, no matter how accomplished is "the bottom of the barrel."
DeleteWhat does 'bottom of the barrel' represent in your metaphor? Didier Raoult? Didier Raoult's book, "Darwin Depasser"? Didier Raoult's contributions to real science? Didier Raoult's views on the 'tree of life'?
DeleteOr does it represent David Moreira, who said 'it's dangerous' to say what Raoult said? Is he scraping the "bottom of the barrel" because Moreira is simply making threatening innuendo?
I would like to know from the 'science enthusiast', why it is 'dangerous' or wrong for Didier Raoult to say or write what he has; or why Moreira is right, or why Moreira is wrong.
Or is is Cornelius Hunter who is "scraping"?
Kindly explain.
Charles Tysoe
Charles -
DeleteI rather think Derick was implying Cornelius was scraping the bottom of the barrel with the OP - trying to dredge up anything he can think of to try to discredit evolution - the entire point of this blog.
As to the specifics of Raoult's seemingly outlandish stance and Moreira's comments, we are merely left to wonder. The links are not very forthcoming.
Which, I imagine, suits Cornelius nicely. He can make it sound like there is a big evolution conspiracy and Moreira is fretting about Raoult letting the cat out of the bag and we are not readily equipped to correct him should this be a misrepresentation of the case.
Without something more concrete, this is only so much propaganda.
Which rather verifies Derick's comment.
Cornelius Hunter: "For evolutionists, anyone who does not accept their bogus truth claims, no matter how accomplished is "the bottom of the barrel."
DeleteNo, you've had some articles that have been thought provoking. (though, probably not in the way you intended, I was a creationist when I started reading this site a few years ago)
But "This one guy said Darwin was a priest, and some people don't like other things he said," Is not a very persuasive argument against evolution.
That last post made me think of something CH - have you ever done a poll of your readers? Obviously there are voices from both sides here. Of people who were clearly in one camp and have switched sides over the years, in which direction do you think most of the movement was in? Of people who were on the fence, which side did they come down on? Those stats would be interesting to know, but I suspect that you wouldn't find the results encouraging.
Delete'Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong.'
ReplyDeleteActually he could have gone one better and stated that Darwin's Theory is so ill found that it is 'Not even Wrong!'
CH: Didier Raoult, whom even the evolutionists admit is “the most productive and influential microbiologist in France,” explains that Charles Darwin “was a priest,” in a personal profile story this week.
ReplyDeleteThis is a classic example of the generic fallacy.
Darwin could have been a Satan worshiper, tortured puppies or even an Angelical priest that claimed the theory of evolution was divinely revealed to him by God.
What matters is that the key aspects of Darwin's theory have survived over 150 years of criticism.
CH: And how do evolutionists respond? David Moreira of the University of Paris-Sud in Orsay explains that “It’s dangerous to say those things.” It’s not that Raoult is wrong, but that he provides creationist groups with ammunition.
Except Darwin make his tree of life prediction before we had discovered DNA. Why would you expect such a discovery not to have an impact on predictions he made? Why would we not evaluate predictions of evolutionary theory based on what we know now, rather than what we knew then?
The absurdity of this sort of assumption is mind boggling.
This would be like evaluating the theory that a man traveled from point A to point B via bicycle, based on predictions made before we even knew there was such a thing as bridges, let alone that they could be closed for construction. The existence of bridges was unrelated to the theory, but would still have an effect on it's predictions.
Yet you seem to think we should ignore this fact, as if reality has nothing to do with predictions made by scientific theories.
The only way I can make sense out of this is that you think divine revelation is the "gold standard" by which all knowledge should be jugged, so the predictions of scientific theories should somehow account for a near infinite number of possibilities, or that you're an Instrumentalist, in that scientific theories are nothing more than a means to accurately predict phenomena, and have no relationship to reality.
"This is a classic example of the gener[t]ic fallacy."
DeleteHow so?
Scott: "This is a classic example of the gener[t]ic fallacy."
DeleteCH: How so?
From the Genetic fallacy entry on wikipedia….
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's genetic origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
In other words, it's irrelevant as to what Darwin's views, state of mind, or what his personal or even professional beliefs were at the time.
What is relevant is that key aspects of his theory has stood up to 150 years of criticism, including the discoveries of DNA, molecular biology, etc. And, as with the case of general relatively, etc, we now understand Darwin's theory far better than he did at the time he formed it.
For example, neo-darwinism isn't merely the survival of the fittest, as Darwin thought. Instead, it refers to genes as replicators that play a causal role in their own copying. As such, there are scenarios where the replication of genes can actually optimize neither the individual or the species. In these scenarios, these genes optimize their own copying at the expense of the species at a whole.
So, while Darwinism started out as Darwin's theory, it's in no way limited to what Darwin thought, nor is it bound by any particular assumptions or views he may have held.
Scott:
DeleteSo, while Darwinism started out as Darwin's theory, it's in no way limited to what Darwin thought ...
Nor did I imply otherwise. In fact, in the very next sentence I wrote that Raoult "questions several tenets of modern evolutionary theory".
CH: Nor did I imply otherwise. In fact, in the very next sentence I wrote that Raoult "questions several tenets of modern evolutionary theory".
DeleteMy point is, your post did not detail WHY Raoult questions tenets of modern evolutionary theory. Was the title of your post was completely arbitrary and had no bering or impact in regards to it's content?
Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest
Furthermore, the only tenet you specifically mentioned was the tree of life. While we now know it's technically not an exact tree, Darwin made this prediction before we had discovered DNA, molecular biology, etc.
It's unclear why you'd expect us to never learn anything new, or that our knowledge of biology would never become more accurate, which would have an impact on how we evaluated this prediction today.
So, it's not that Raoult is wrong about the tree of life, it's the fact that creationists evaluate it as if it's prophecy.
I love it when evolutionists start trying to throw fallacy accusations around. It's hilarious.
DeleteApparently, writing misleading blog posts is OK, when it comes to battling those evil "evolutionists."
DeleteAgain, the fallacy here was implied by the title of the post, Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest, which is past tense reference to Darwin himself, along with the fact that Cornelius did not elaborate on why Raoult "questions several tenets of modern evolutionary theory".
As such, it met the definition of the genetic fallacy.
Again,
ReplyDelete…what is your position on the role of empirical observations in science? Please be specific.
I won't be holding my breath for an answer.
Scott, empirical observation in anything that comes to mind has the same role and effect , which is to observe, witness, ascertain, verify. Science is no different from any other human endeavor in that regard it is but another. I say that to moderate the almost sacrosanct anthropomorphic way in which many seem to speak about the sciences. Which is just another way of saying the areas of human expertise and highly developed knowledge due to minute observations. Again in other words just paying extreme close attention to detail and experimenting with variables to isolate cause and effect relationships.
DeleteAll that being said which i am sure you feel you didn't need, please excuse upon the justification that i did.
Is that a sufficient answer to your question coming from someone to whom you didn't direct it? Can I engage you in this discussion that we may perhaps both mutually benefit from? I mean at least it was a baby question that i felt i could try to answer.
Michael,
DeleteThere is a difference between making empirical observations and the role those observations play in science. Furthermore, there are subtile, but important differences in the ways one can pay extreme close attention to details, extrapolate the results of performed experiments, etc.
This is the question I'm asking.
If you're a layman (as I am) you might not be aware of these differences. I wasn't, until I began research into the history of science, different forms of epistemology, etc. As such, I wouldn't expect a layman to be aware of these subtile, but important differences.
However, Cornelius isn't a layman. He should be quite familiar with the issues I've raised, as these details make up the foundation of science and quite relevant to the subject at hand.
In fact, I'm suggesting he is depending on the fact that his target audience isn't aware of these differences or dogmatically holds them as being "True" since they represent the foundation of their theology.
So, while I appreciate your response, I've directed my question at Cornelius since he's the one making the arguments, presenting himself as a biologist and scientist that is somehow neutral with regard to the assumptions he's making, etc.
If you like, I can point you in the direction of material that can illustrate these differences further.
“It’s dangerous to say those things.”
ReplyDeleteThat's where we are people. According to darwin-worshippers, it's dangerous to admit the problems with the 'theory' lest people stop placing their faith in it. And they say darwinism isn't a religion.
CH -
ReplyDeleteAnd how do evolutionists respond? David Moreira of the University of Paris-Sud in Orsay explains that “It’s dangerous to say those things.”
Can you source this please Cornelius?
You see it's not that I think you're quote-mining, I just think... well... you're quote-mining.
Ritchie:
DeleteYou see it's not that I think you're quote-mining, I just think... well... you're quote-mining.
It is at the link provided in the OP:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1033.summary
Indeed. But I was actually hoping you could source David Moreiea's words, not Raoult's claim, to see if we can get more context to them.
DeleteYou see it rather sounds to me like he would be saying "This is dangerous because silly Creationists will jump all over this and erroneously shout this from the rooftops as some great victory' rather than 'This is dangerous because he'll expose our secret conspiracy to keep evolution alive so that the brainwashed masses will turn away from God and burn forever in Hell. Bwahahahahaha." which is what you're implying he means.
I was hoping a source might help clear that up...?
Ritchie:
DeleteWell yes and yes. Of course it is the usual, as you say, not wanting to give ammunition to those creationist rascals. But this means--except in rare cases such as Raoult--that a true, objective and honest assessment of the science won't be forthcoming from evolutionists. But then again, we already knew that.
And by 'true, objective and honest assessment of the science' you mean 'one that I agree with'?
DeleteThe one thing I am missing here is an open appraisal of Raoult's logic. What reasoning led him to reject Darwinian evolution? And what is he proposing instead?
Do you even know? Or have you just trumpeted his words because he said something you really like the sound of?
CH: But this means--except in rare cases such as Raoult--that a true, objective and honest assessment of the science won't be forthcoming from evolutionists. But then again, we already knew that.
DeleteSo, as far as you're concerned, "true, objective and honest assessment", means evaluating the predictions of evolutionary theory as prophecy?
Again, it's unclear how this is reasonable or even rational.
"quote mining" - invented by Darwinists.
Delete"Quote mining isn't recognized by any other encyclopedia or dictionary
This may be unpopular on wiki but the concept of "quote mining" isn't recognized by any encyclopedia or dictionary. Other than wikipedia, the only other sources which recognize quote mining as a legitimate concept are atheist, anti religion, anti intelligent design and/or anti creationism sites and certain scientists. The term and, given the examples in this article, its application seem subjective and ideologically driven. On one hand, it makes it appear as though only "creationists" can be accused of "quote mining;" yet Barbara's and Gross's "Creationism's Trojan Horse," which this article uses as a reference of "creationist" quote mining is an example of atheist, rather than evidence for creationist, quote mining. ID isn't creationism. Atheist Bradley Monton in "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" has said ID isn't creationism and it's a question worth pursuing, including as a scientific theory. But given the level of what can be called anti-ID "quote mining" on ID-related pages on wiki which passes as NPOV and factual, it's not surprising that only those who dare question materialism or evolution would be the target of pejorative labels. The WIlliam Dembski page, for example, has quotes of peopel quoting Dembski supposedly admitting he's Christian which somehow is supposed to mean his ID theory is creationism. So does Dawkins being an atheist mean his theories are guided by his atheism rather than science, and thus are scientifically invalid? On the other hand, "quote mining" seems to be a charged leveled against someone anytime someone's words are used against them. Is it quote mining or just someone upset their words are used against them? "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them," by Henry M Morris, a creationist, argues this latter point. Wiki is supposed to be NPOV therefore is it not in accordance with this stated position to point out that "quote mining" is not only a debatable concept but that its application is controversial? It also seems rather redundant. Why do you need to develop an entire sub genre when it basically means the same thing - to take a quote out of context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.9.236 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)"
From wikipedia talk page about quote mining. Did they invent god of the gaps as well? An accusation that comes into play whenever you "fill a gap" with anything but naturalism. No matter how much science backs you up.
Temi -
DeleteOther than wikipedia, the only other sources which recognize quote mining as a legitimate concept are atheist, anti religion, anti intelligent design and/or anti creationism sites and certain scientists
Huh?
You are saying religious people don't understand the concept of quote-mining?!?!
Although, actually that would explain a lot...
However, it is obviously false:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Quote_mining
On one hand, it makes it appear as though only "creationists" can be accused of "quote mining;"
No-one I know has made that claim. Although there IS a lot of quote-mining in the whole evolution v creationism 'debate', and I believe it generally is the creationists who practice it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
But no-one said scientists/atheists/evolution supporters are INCAPABLE of quote-mining. That would be a ridiculous claim.
...it's not surprising that only those who dare question materialism or evolution would be the target of pejorative labels.
Demonstrably wrong.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-professor-youre-quote-mining-elliott-sober/
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2011/06/evolutionary-quote-mining-and.html
On the other hand, "quote mining" seems to be a charged leveled against someone anytime someone's words are used against them. Is it quote mining or just someone upset their words are used against them?
Quote-mining is quoting someone's words out of context and thereby changing the meaning of their words. If I were to write an essay saying: "Only if evidence were presented would I agree that there is a God" and you quoted me as saying "There is a God" then technically you have quoted me. I mean I did use those words. But by selecting only those words you have in fact changed the meaning of what I said. That is a quote-mine. And if I then complained, it would be unreasonable of you to say I was 'just getting upset that my own words were being used against me'.
Did they invent god of the gaps as well? An accusation that comes into play whenever you "fill a gap" with anything but naturalism. No matter how much science backs you up.
God of the Gaps is an entirely religious argument.
And if you come up with any 'explanation' which is not naturalistic, then it will be backed up by precisely zero science. That is exactly the problem with abandoning naturalism (see my response to you in the next thread for details on this).
NOT WRONG BUT DANGEROUS TO SAY SO!
ReplyDeleteConspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy!!!
Are these people stupid!
The truth is the only object of investigation of nature.
There is not another object of running interference.
Why did this guy want to be quoted as saying creationism means pull back on ones honest opinions?
Can creationists say AHA. This is what is going on everywhere and probably more then that!
EXPELLED indeed.
Even in France creationism is a threat . Of course the French always give too quick!
here is the entire quote from ENV:
ReplyDelete"Darwin was a priest," Raoult says, claiming that the image of the tree of life that Darwin proposed is inspired from the Bible. "It also is too simplistic." Raoult questions several other tenets of modern evolutionary theory, including the importance of natural selection. He says recent discoveries in genetics show how frequently genes are exchanged not just between different microbial species but also between microbes and complex organisms, for instance, in the human gut. That means de novo creation of entirely new species is possible, Raoult argues, and Darwin's branching tree of life should be replaced by a network of interconnected species.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html
Yeah so what??? Computers share information with other devices and even with other computers, but that doesn't, even for a instance, begin to explain where the computers or the devices came from in the first place. Not to mention the obvious fact that simply exchanging information does not explain the origination of that information being exchanged by those computers or devices in the first place!
notes:
A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult- May 2010 -
Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
ReplyDelete‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
So, just as with Shapiro's 'natural genetic engineering' which skirted this issue, the burning question for Didier Raoult 'interconnected web' once again becomes, "Where is the information coming from?" in the first place.
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
http://vimeo.com/32148403
I think scientists are missing the most obvious candidate to explain where that information is coming from
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The Word - Sara Groves - music video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofE-GZ8zTU
But this means--except in rare cases such as Raoult--that a true, objective and honest assessment of the science won't be forthcoming from evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteSo when the author of that statement said three days ago:
Evolutionists resisted and denied these findings using the usual tactics of intimidation, dismissal, blackballing, and manipulation of the science.
was he was making a true, objective and honest assessment of the history of epigenesis research?
If he was being truthful, objective and honest, why has he failed to back up those claims with evidence, despite repeated requests from interested readers?
"At 59, Didier Raoult is the most productive and influential microbiologist in France, leading a team of 200 scientists and students at the University of Aix-Marseille. He has discovered or co-discovered dozens of new bacteria, and in 2003, he stunned colleagues with a virus of record size, dubbed Mimivirus, the first member of a family that sheds an intriguing new light on the evolution of viruses and the tree of life. Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution IS WRONG. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006. Scientists at Raoult's lab say they wouldn't want to work anywhere else. Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him. "
ReplyDelete--
So here is a noted microbiologist (who does not support creationists or ID), who said that Darwinism is flat-out wrong.
To the evolutionists here, what are you disagreeing with?
That he is not a qualified scientist?
That this quote about him saying Darwinism is flat-out wrong?
If you can not ground your disagreement with something solid, then I'd say you have a big problem with a noted microbiologist saying Darwinism is flat-out wrong.
I'm curious if you guys agree with this noted microbiologist that Darwinism is flat-out wrong. Sounds like the captains are leaving the sinking Darwin ship while the seaman recruits are left holding buckets. How much longer before you guys bolt?