Monday, July 29, 2013

Here’s One Reason Why Evolution is No Ordinary Scientific Theory

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”—Max Planck

Evolutionists will never “see the light,” as Max Planck put it, no matter how badly their theory fares, because evolution is not an ordinary scientific theory. Evolution is not believed to be true because of scientific evidence that the species arose via random events and natural law—chance and necessity—but because the anti thesis, design and creation, has been refuted. Indeed, the idea that the biological world spontaneously arose is scientifically unlikely. But it must be true because, as evolutionists explain, creationism is obviously false. As the leading twentieth century evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, once explained, evolution achieved its predominance “less by the amount of irrefutable proofs it has been able to present than by the default of all the opposing theories.” But those opposing theories were refuted on the basis of religious claims. As Stephen Gould put it:

Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.

Likewise Jerry Coyne explains that the appearance of species through time is “far from random” and “no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” [29] And why are species so similar? “There is no reason,” explains Coyne, “why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.” [54]

No reason? How does Coyne know that?

Another favorite source of proof for evolution is embryology. Here are representative quotes from leading evolutionists:

How does God’s plan for humans and sharks require them to have almost identical embryos? [Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, p. 48]

The passage through a fishlike stage by the embryos of the higher vertebrates is not explained by creation, but is readily accounted for as an evolutionary relic. [Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, p. 22]

Now, we’re not absolutely sure why some species retain much of their evolutionary history during development. The “adding new stuff onto old” principle is just a hypothesis—and explanation for the facts of embryology. It’s hard to prove that it was easier for a developmental program to evolve one way rather than another. But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution. [Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, p. 78-9]

Of course these claims about creationism and precisely what God would and would not do, are not from science. Nor are the many other metaphysical claims that, over and over, prove evolution.

In fact evolution is drenched in metaphysics. From its early formulations in the Enlightenment years, to Darwin, to today’s refinements, evolution relies on non scientific assumptions. The “fact” of evolution has never been demonstrated without appeal to non scientific truths.

This reasoning is perfectly valid but it is metaphysical—it is based on our definition of a “sensible God.” So while the empirical science reveals the details of why evolution is unlikely, the religious sentiment mandates that evolution is, somehow, true because creationism must be false.

This reliance on the refutation of creationism means that evolution is a religious theory. But some evolutionists deny this. Yes we say creationism has failed, but that doesn’t make evolution religious, explain these evolutionists. One can test the claims of a theory without agreeing or believing in the premises and beliefs of that theory.

The problem is they are not merely testing the claims of creationism. That is a canard that makes no sense. For centuries evolutionists have fervently expounded that God would not have created such a world as this one. This is no academic, dispassionate analysis. In fact most of the evolutionists claims about creationism would not be recognized by most creationists or design advocates.

Evolutionists are not testing the claims of creationism, they are proclaiming their religious beliefs about God and creation. Beliefs that they have proclaimed for centuries.

Imagine if evolutionists were indeed merely testing some claims they had found in their favorite creationist journal. If that were actually the case, then the most evolutionists could claim is that they have falsified a particular theory of creationism. They would not be able to conclude that evolution is the only remaining alternative. There are many, many potential theories of creationism. They would have refuted only one of them and this would tell us very little about evolution. There would be one less competitor, but the monumental scientific problems with evolution would remain. And so would all but one of the competing theories.

The giveaway is in the takeaway. You can tell how serious evolutionists are about their religious premises by their conclusion that evolution must be true. Or in other words, evolutionists can only conclude that evolution is a fact if they are not merely testing a particular form of creationism, but rather are testing universal claims about creationism.

Their conclusion that evolution is a fact means they believe their claims about creationism are universal. For example, Coyne really believes that God would never have created species with the similarities that we find or the embryonic stages we observe.

As Coyne says, no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns. How can Coyne have knowledge about all possible explanations? The answer, of course, is that he cannot have such knowledge. At least not from science. That kind of knowledge only comes from religion.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

95 comments:

  1. "This reasoning is perfectly valid but it is metaphysical—it is based on our definition of a “sensible God.” So while the empirical science reveals the details of why evolution is unlikely, the religious sentiment mandates that evolution is, somehow, true because creationism must be false."

    For me, a YEC, this is also true except the religious sentiment mandates that CREATIONISM is, somehow, true because EVOLUTION must be false"

    And the satisfaction of being a YEC comes as the empirical science reveals the details of why evolution is unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, awstar, ultra-fast evolution right after 'the flud' is completely acceptable to you but evolution over millions/billions of years is not. Makes perfect sense, NOT.



      Delete
    2. TWT, can you tell me how many millions of years are required to transform a great dane's genome into something like a chihuahua's? Aside from that, what conclusions do you think a paelontologist might draw from fossils they would leave?

      Delete
    3. John said:

      "TWT, can you tell me how many millions of years are required to transform a great dane's genome into something like a chihuahua's?"

      As I'm sure you're aware, that sort of transformation doesn't necessarily take millions of years.

      "Aside from that, what conclusions do you think a paelontologist might draw from fossils they would leave?"

      Of course there are a lot of things to consider in such a scenario but I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that some paleontologists might think that they were/are separate species. A lot would depend on whether series of fossils were found that show the transformation, and whether the animals existed before humans or were a product of human intervention.

      Delete
    4. Blah, Blah, Blah..... Twt, your beloved magistrates of speculation can not demostrate s___t. Never have been able to. Your apprent hate of "religion" is what seems to drives your irrational and premature acceptance of trivial crap passed off as "scientific" evidence in support of what is really philosophical fluff. You are a clown extaordinaire. Your are being used by those who abuse science and the minds capable of appreciating science. The bastards who promulgate bullshit as science regardless of the impact on humanity and the world at large. Well, I guess, what do you expect from such a lying pack of self serving assholes?

      Delete
    5. bpragmatic is off his medication again I see.

      Delete
    6. TWT, It seems that you recognize a certain type of "evolution" that appears to be ultra fast, and as you say does not take millions of years while at the same time implying that there is another form of evolution that takes so long that it would leave transitions in fossils laid down in a "series" (I'm assuming you mean up through rock layers).

      I would propose that perhaps awstar allows for the first kind of evolution you believe in (that which science can demonstrate experimentally) while rejecting the second kind of evolution you believe in (the part you admit might be improperly interpreted).

      Delete
    7. John, I don't "believe in" evolution. I accept that evolution has occurred and still occurs and will continue to occur.

      I don't accept the implication (or that which is asserted outright by some religious people) of the biblical flood/ark fairy tale regarding the post flood ultra fast evolution and world wide dispersal of every living thing on Earth.

      I do accept that the 'pace' or 'speed' of evolution varies amongst living things.

      By "series" I was thinking of something like horse or whale fossils but for the point I was making about great danes and chihuahuas any series (even if incomplete) that provided some comparison material would be helpful in determining whether they were the same or separate species.

      I didn't mention DNA before because we were just discussing fossils but if DNA were available in the fossils, that of course would be helpful too.

      Regarding transitions in fossils laid down in a "series", I would contend that they can occur geographically and/or stratigraphically.

      Delete
    8. my point is that if you can recognize that certain types of diversity are possible from organisms with genomes so identical they can still produce offspring, why can you not allow that same type of diversity to have occurred in a time span much longer than is observed to be necessary after the flood?

      on the other hand, how many mutations would you propose needed to be fixed in the population of a dog like animal before it could turn into a fully aquatic whale having entirely new body parts in under 2-4 million years? What are you calculations for how long those fixations would take?

      Delete
  2. cornelius, there are several ways in which I could respond to your post but for now I'll just say this:

    You need some serious psychological counseling, and the sooner the better. Your anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-reality religious indoctrination is severe. The best thing you could do for yourself and others is to quickly find and commit yourself to a rehabilitation clinic that specializes in deprogramming religious zealots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That comment says more about you than it does about Cornelius.

      Delete
    2. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. If you have nothing substantive to attack the messenger with, just claim they are crazy. Ad Hominem attacks will really shut up those Darwin skeptics.

      Delete
    3. RVW said:

      "That comment says more about you than it does about Cornelius."

      Yeah, it says that I'm able to recognize cornelius's severe, anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-reality, religious indoctrination, and to strongly recommend that he pursues counseling to diminish or eliminate it.

      Do you think that it's healthy for him to be so obsessed with denying evolution and destroying evolutionary theory?

      Delete
    4. LOL! your post in fact says quite a bit about you, and the same could be said about you. Why do you embrace a theory so greatly? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is called the "Theory of Evolution" is it not? Even some scientists don't embrace the "Theory of Relativity" because it is just that. A theory. Not fact. There are too many variables that change on a constant basis for it to be fact, and yet you take a firm hold on it like it was a last drip of water seeping through your fingers.

      The simple fact that some scientists have recanted their belief in the "Big Bang Theory" because it doesn't make sense should speak volume for itself. Now there's the "Rainbow universe Theory" or the theory that the universe has always existed... I've read that somewhere before.. Now where was that?

      Delete
    5. LOL! your post in fact says quite a bit about you, and the same could be said about you. Why do you embrace a theory so greatly? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is called the "Theory of Evolution" is it not? Even some scientists don't embrace the "Theory of Relativity" because it is just that. A theory. Not fact. There are too many variables that change on a constant basis for it to be fact, and yet you take a firm hold on it like it was a last drip of water seeping through your fingers.

      The simple fact that some scientists have recanted their belief in the "Big Bang Theory" because it doesn't make sense should speak volume for itself. Now there's the "Rainbow universe Theory" or the theory that the universe has always existed... I've read that somewhere before.. Now where was that?

      Delete
  3. "As Coyne says, no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns. How can Coyne have knowledge about all possible explanations?"

    I think Coyne refers to the current lack of other, competing theories. He does not say that such theories cannot exist in principle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oleg:

      I think Coyne refers to the current lack of other, competing theories. He does not say that such theories cannot exist in principle.

      What is it about "only" that you don't understand:

      Quote: “But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution.”

      Also, how does Coyne know this:

      Quote: “There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.”

      Delete
    2. I don't think you have addressed my objection. Try again.

      Delete
    3. oleg:

      I don't think you have addressed my objection. Try again.

      I said that Coyne said that no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns. You responded that you thought Coyne was merely referring to the current lack of other, competing theories. That he does not say that such theories cannot exist in principle. I explained that your interpretation of Coyne is incorrect, which can be seen for example when Coyne says “But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution.” When Coyne says the facts make sense only in light of evolution, that is equivalent to saying that “no theory other than evolution can explain” those facts.

      To illustrate further and help you understand evolution, I asked you how Coyne can know what a “celestial designer” would do:

      Quote: “There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.”

      Delete
    4. "I explained that your interpretation of Coyne is incorrect, which can be seen for example when Coyne says “But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution.”"

      You would have to point me to a Coyne quote from which it is clear that he rules out the lack of even potential (rather than existing) alternatives to theory of evolution. So far I have not seen anything approaching that in what he says.

      Delete
    5. You would have to point me to a Coyne quote from which it is clear that he rules out the lack of even potential (rather than existing) alternatives to theory of evolution. So far I have not seen anything approaching that in what he says.

      Do you agree that “the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution” is equivalent to “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns”?

      Delete
    6. You'd have to help me parse what only refers to: the lack of existing alternatives or potential ones. That's where our disagreement is.

      Clear enough?

      Delete
    7. Also, how does Coyne know this:

      Quote: “There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.”

      Delete
    8. Coyne is right: we don't know of any reason why a designer of life would have to be limited to gradual processes. What's the problem with that?

      Delete
    9. You'd have to help me parse what only refers to: the lack of existing alternatives or potential ones. That's where our disagreement is. Clear enough?

      The English is clear. You would have to add meaning that is not there. To help you see that Coyne has not accidently left that meaning out, see this other quote I supplied: “no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” Here Coyne categorically states that “any theory other than evolution” doesn’t work, not “the particular theories that people have considered.”

      To help you even more, evolutionists consistently claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” That statement is also equivalent to “Everything in biology only makes sense in light of evolution,” which also means that “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns.”

      Delete
    10. CH: how does Coyne know this: “There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.”

      oleg: Coyne is right: we don't know of any reason why a designer of life would have to be limited to gradual processes. What's the problem with that?


      You seem to be having difficulty with English today. “There is no reason why a celestial designer …” is a metaphysical claim about celestial designers. It is not an epistemological claim about the state of our knowledge, as you so converted it. Evolutionists do not say “we don't know of any reason why a celestial designer …”

      Delete
    11. That's where the rub is, isn't it? You think that Coyne implies "no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, existing or potential one." I don't.

      Theory of special creation implies, well, special creation. What do you think it means? It means that creatures were made from scratch and did not descend from other animals.

      As one doctrinal statement explains, "God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God)." That statement adds, in case it is not obvious: "Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."

      So we can see that a theory of special creation (as defined by Biola) is at odds with the physical evidence of common ancestry of humans and apes.

      Delete
    12. Do you agree with this:

      To help you even more, evolutionists consistently claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” That statement is also equivalent to “Everything in biology only makes sense in light of evolution,” which also means that “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns.”

      (more later ...)

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. Again, this boils down to figuring out whether "no theory" refers to the space of existing theories or to the space of all possible theories. You have failed to provide any evidence that it is the latter.

      Delete
    15. And since you have brought up Dobzhansky's essay Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, reading that essay makes it clear that you are bending the truth. That particular evolutionist certainly did not mean to say that no alternative theories are even possible. This passage from the essay makes it crystal clear:

      "Oceanic islands other than Hawaii, scattered over the wide Pacific Ocean, are not conspicuously rich in endemic species of drosophilids. The most probable explanation of this fact is that these other islands were colonized by drosophilid after most ecologic niches had already been filled by earlier arrivals. This surely is a hypothesis, but it is a reasonable one. Antievolutionists might perhaps suggest an alternative hypothesis: in a fit of absentmindedness, the Creator went on manufacturing more and more drosophilid species for Hawaii, until there was an extravagant surfeit of them in this archipelago. I leave it up to you to decide which hypothesis makes sense."

      Delete
    16. Logical possibilities are not explanatory theories. Nor can we explain anything with an un-conceived explanation. As such, it's unclear how they could be used to explain anything, let alone patterns in biological features.

      Of course, feel free to explain how that would actually be possible, in practice.

      Furthermore, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. It does not prohibit anything based on an explanation about how the world works. Creationism shares the same problem, as it is not based on a hard to vary explanation about how God works. The terms "loving", "sensible", etc. do not constrain God's actions in any meaningful way. At best, you have prophesy, but such claims do not give any explanation as to how the prophesy will actually come about. Prophesy is easily varied because it makes no claims about how the world works by which they come about.

      To quote Popper: "Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

      IOW, good scientific theories are incompatible with a great number of explanatory theories.

      But these prohibitions also come from deep, hard to vary explanatory theories about how the world works. In the absence of such explanations, you have prophecy. No theory includes all unrelated, yet possibility parallel events that could effect its prohibitions. This is because they are not based on some supernatural authorities source, as prophecy supposedly does.

      For example, supposedly having the knowledge to build any organism that has or could be made, creationism doesn't explain why organisms appeared in the order of least to most complex. God could have created them in the order of most to least, or the least and most simultaneously. And this is just one example.

      On the other hand, Darwinism is the theory that the knowledge of how to build the adaptive features of biological organisms was genuinely created over time. Nature could not build more complex organisms because the knowledge necessary to build them had yet to be created. This is a prohibition that isn't merely prophecy, but it based on explanations of how the world works. This includes a specific definition of knowledge, specific types (explanatory and non-explanatory) and a theory of how knowledge grows.

      As such, creationism doesn't explain as much phenomena as Darwinism. And using the word "explain" is a stretch as the the explanations it gives are shallow, connected to the explanation itself and easily varied.

      Delete
    17. CH:"What is it about "only" that you don't understand:"

      Clinton got to define 'is', Krauss gets to define 'nothing' so maybe oleg wants to take a shot at redefining 'only'? LOL.

      Delete
    18. "Coyne is right: we don't know of any reason why a designer of life would have to be limited to gradual processes. "


      Coyne is wrong and the statement is a clear example of nitwit thinking combined with rank ignorance of the opposing viewpoint. As almost every theist knows a transcendant designer would be timeless. As such slow or fast would make no difference to the designer. So we not only have good reason and know of a reason - we have reason based on the nature of the designer to think there is no intrinsic preference.

      The point falls flat without so much as breaking a sweat.

      Delete
    19. Question from an earlier thread:

      Cornelius, are you saying there can be no distinction between taking someone else's theory seriously, as if it was true in reality, for the purpose of criticism, and actually holding that belief personally as a matter of faith?

      If there can be a distinction, what is your criteria and how did you apply it to Gould? Please be specific.

      If not, what is it about God that prevents such a distinction from being made?

      For example, can no distinction be made because claims about God are merely moment by moment assertions that have no implications about reality of which we can criticize?

      Also, if no distinction can be made, rather than just saying "no" to the above option, please explain where your view differs. Again, please be specific.


      Based on this post, are you saying no distinction is possible?

      And it's not possible because there are is a potential infinite number of yet to be conceived creation "theories"? But, as I pointed out above, this isn't unique to evolutionary theory.

      As such, it's still unclear if you think such a distinction is possible or why / why not.

      Is there something specific to God that prevents such a distinction from being made?

      Delete
    20. And since you have brought up Dobzhansky's essay Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, reading that essay makes it clear that you are bending the truth. That particular evolutionist certainly did not mean to say that no alternative theories are even possible. This passage from the essay makes it crystal clear:

      "Oceanic islands other than Hawaii, scattered over the wide Pacific Ocean, are not conspicuously rich in endemic species of drosophilids. The most probable explanation of this fact is that these other islands were colonized by drosophilid after most ecologic niches had already been filled by earlier arrivals. This surely is a hypothesis, but it is a reasonable one. Antievolutionists might perhaps suggest an alternative hypothesis: in a fit of absentmindedness, the Creator went on manufacturing more and more drosophilid species for Hawaii, until there was an extravagant surfeit of them in this archipelago. I leave it up to you to decide which hypothesis makes sense."


      No, you seem to doing everything possible to evade the point. The issue is not whether “alternative theories are even possible.” No one is claiming that. What evolutionists claim is that alternative theories (to evolution) don’t make sense on the data, that no theory other than evolution can explain the biological patterns. The particular quote you supply from the Dobzhansky paper is simply another way to make that point. He is saying that creationism fails on the drosophilid data. That is one of his supporting arguments for his claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

      Delete
    21. You're wrong about Dobzhansky. He shows that it is possible to conjure up a creationist explanation alongside an evolutionary one. He then lets the reader decide which theory makes sense.

      Dobzhansky is half-serious of course. But behind that joke there is a serious point. Creationist explanations are invariably post-hoc. They are infinitely malleable (a point incidentally made by the intrepid Elijah2012). They can explain anything. An infinitely powerful designer can afford to design anything in any conceivable or inconceivable way. He can mimic nature and design things as if they evolved. Last Thursdayism. This is why creationist explanations are not taken seriously. They do not constitute a scientific theory because they are entirely unconstrained. Anything can happen, God knows why.

      Delete
    22. What evolutionists claim is that alternative theories (to evolution) don’t make sense on the data...

      I think that's incorrect. It's not that alternative theories don't make sense, it's that there are no testable alternative theories. One can say that the alternative to common descent is separate creation, but what evidence supports that theory? What experiments can be devised to test it? Hunter? Anyone?

      It's been entertaining to watch Hunter twist himself into a pretzel today trying to establish that "evolutionists" have committed metaphysical murder, when all they've been doing is embracing a fruitful line of inquiry and ignoring (not rejecting) a vacuous hypothesis.

      Oleg, don't let him off the hook.

      Delete
    23. CH: What evolutionists claim is that alternative theories (to evolution) don’t make sense on the data, that no theory other than evolution can explain the biological patterns.

      If you consider "That's just what God must have wanted" an explanation for the order of organisms in the fossil recored, then, yes, that technically is an explanation.

      However, this very far from being a long, hard to vary chain of independently formed explanations.

      But that's just the beginning of the problem..

      A designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build organisms, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organism "just appeared', complete with the knowledge of how to build copies of themselves, already present in their genome.

      Creationism has no explanation for this knowledge. Nor will any be forthcoming. This is because it is based on the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative, supernatural sources.

      But this just pushes the problem into some inexplicable realm.

      Delete
    24. You're wrong about Dobzhansky. He shows that it is possible to conjure up a creationist explanation alongside an evolutionary one. He then lets the reader decide which theory makes sense. Dobzhansky is half-serious of course.

      That example you cited from Dobzhansky’s paper is one of several that he uses to make his point that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Of course readers can differ, that is a given. But Dobzhansky is clear about his conclusion throughout the paper.

      You have concluded that I am “wrong about Dobzhansky” on the basis of your canard about alternative theories not even being possible. Evolutionists don’t say that. I didn’t say that. You made that up, remember?


      But behind that joke there is a serious point. Creationist explanations are invariably post-hoc. They are infinitely malleable … Last Thursdayism.”

      Yet another canard. Dobzhansky, Coyne, Gould, Darwin, etc. are not primarily concerned with the post-hoc problem. The claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” does not come from the post-hoc problem.

      The post-hoc problem does not necessarily imply that a theory makes no sense. Evolutionists engage in post-hoc reasoning all the time. That alone doesn’t mean the theory makes no sense. The arguments Dobzhansky, Coyne, Gould, Darwin, etc. do not derive from the post-hoc problem.


      Coyne is right: we don't know of any reason why a designer of life would have to be limited to gradual processes. What's the problem with that?

      Again, you seem to be having difficulty with English today. “There is no reason why a celestial designer …” is a metaphysical claim about celestial designers. It is not an epistemological claim about the state of our knowledge, as you so converted it. Evolutionists do not say “we don't know of any reason why a celestial designer …”

      Delete
    25. Pedant:

      I think that's incorrect. It's not that alternative theories don't make sense, it's that there are no testable alternative theories.

      Oh, I see. So when evolutionists say no sensible God would ever create this world, they actually didn't mean that at all. What they really meant was that the idea is not testable. Funny how evolutionists communicate. And since their concern is with testability, that means the problem no longer is a proof for evolution. And it doesn't mean that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” I suppose those were just more mis statements right?

      Gotta love it. You evolutionists will say whatever you want, whenever you want, to cover up anything. Oh what a web we weave.

      Delete
    26. Let's review briefly what has been said.

      CH: "To help you even more, evolutionists consistently claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” That statement is also equivalent to “Everything in biology only makes sense in light of evolution,” which also means that “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns.”"

      OT: That's where the rub is, isn't it? You think that Coyne implies "no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, existing or potential one." I don't.

      CH: "To help you even more, evolutionists consistently claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” That statement is also equivalent to “Everything in biology only makes sense in light of evolution,” which also means that “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns.”"

      OT: "And since you have brought up Dobzhansky's essay Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, reading that essay makes it clear that you are bending the truth. That particular evolutionist certainly did not mean to say that no alternative theories are even possible."

      CH: "You have concluded that I am “wrong about Dobzhansky” on the basis of your canard about alternative theories not even being possible. Evolutionists don’t say that. I didn’t say that. You made that up, remember?"

      You are twisting in the wind, Cornelius. First you interpret “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns” as a sweeping statement, then you disavow that you ever meant that. Pick one and stick with it.

      Delete
    27. oleg:

      You are twisting in the wind, Cornelius. First you interpret “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns” as a sweeping statement, then you disavow that you ever meant that. Pick one and stick with it.

      Two points. First, earlier I called your argument a canard. Perhaps I should merely have said your argument is confused. But the confusion is significant, which brings me to your statement here and my second point.

      There is a difference between saying “No theory except evolution can explain biology” and “No theory except evolution is possible.” Evolutionists claim the former, but not the latter. Then you (erroneously) say I’m bending the truth because I ascribe to them the latter. And even when I point out it out you continue with your confusion.

      I hadn’t thought you were so fundamentally confused, but from your statement you obviously are not grasping this distinction.

      To summarize for you, “only evolution can explain these patterns” and “no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns” are sweeping statements. But they are not claims that evolution is the only possible theory that is “even possible” as you put it.

      Delete
    28. Here is what you wrote:

      "I said that Coyne said that no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns. You responded that you thought Coyne was merely referring to the current lack of other, competing theories. That he does not say that such theories cannot exist in principle. I explained that your interpretation of Coyne is incorrect, which can be seen for example when Coyne says “But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution.” When Coyne says the facts make sense only in light of evolution, that is equivalent to saying that “no theory other than evolution can explain” those facts."

      Now you're trying to walk that back. Not gonna work.

      Delete
    29. Ummm, what's there to walk back? You said Coyne is referring merely to existing alternatives to evolution. I pointed out that Coyne's argument has no such limit. He claims that no theory, existing or otherwise, other than evolution, makes sense on biology. He doesn't claim no such theories can even exist. Merely that they don't make sense and fail.

      Perhaps with this clarification we have more agreement than we thought. Or perhaps you still think Coyne refers only to *existing* alternatives.

      Delete
    30. You're not making any sense, Cornelius. You have previously said, quite unequivocally, that my interpretation of Coyne was incorrect. Let me remind you.

      CH: "As Coyne says, no theory other than evolution can explain these patterns. How can Coyne have knowledge about all possible explanations?"

      OT: "I think Coyne refers to the current lack of other, competing theories. He does not say that such theories cannot exist in principle."

      CH: "...you thought Coyne was merely referring to the current lack of other, competing theories. That he does not say that such theories cannot exist in principle. I explained that your interpretation of Coyne is incorrect..."

      Now you're saying that we didn't really disagree? Wut?

      Delete
    31. I think the confusion was in the term "such theories." Does that refer to currently non existent (i) alternatives to evolution that *make sense*, or merely to (ii) alternatives to evolution.

      I think you are saying Coyne allows for both (i) and (ii) whereas I'm saying Coyne allows only for (ii).

      If I am correct about what you are saying, I think it is both incorrect (or at least an extrapolation beyond what Coyne says), but also a distinction without a difference.

      Delete
    32. Let’s look at your view that Coyne allows for both (i) and (ii), if I have that right. First, it is still a religious claim. Second, fails to provide proof for the truth or fact of evolution, or otherwise provide substantial support for evolution.

      Imagine if a creationist were to criticize evolution using a particular subhypothesis, such as a selectionist approach. And he was to use that criticism as proof that evolution is false, and therefore creationism is true.

      You could rightly say he is a selectionist, that his conclusion hinges on selectionism being true (i.e., if evolution occurred, then it must have proceeded according to selectionism), and that his conclusion that creationism is true is false because the failure of selectionism does not spell doom for evolution, per se.

      Likewise for evolutionists. In fact it is worse because creationists and IDs wouldn’t even recognize their version of creationism or design. Their conclusion that creationism/ID per se is falsified means that their argument hinges on their particular version of creationism. In other words, their particular version is the only version possible. If there is a Creator, he must work according to the evolutionist’s premises. That is a metaphysical assumption.

      And their argument doesn’t help evolution because it is based on a particular, and obscure, version of creationism.

      Delete
    33. Oh, I see.

      No, you don't see. You react defensively when your claim is threatened.

      So when evolutionists say no sensible God would ever create this world, they actually didn't mean that at all.

      It's a hypothetical: given the supposition that the Abrahamic God has the powers credited to it by believers, how do the data fit? So far in history, they haven't.

      What they really meant was that the idea is not testable.

      Well, is it? I'm not seeing a rebuttal. Be a sport; outline a test.

      And since their concern is with testability, that means the problem no longer is a proof for evolution.

      It's not a "proof." It's a telling point directed at creationist thinking. You're deeply offended by that and have been desperately trying to amplify the point into an imputation of intellectual dishonesty. This whole blame shtick is typical religious apologetics. And it is futile.

      You evolutionists will say whatever you want, whenever you want, to cover up anything.

      You creationists say whatever nonsense you can think of in pathetic attempts to discredit science.

      Delete
    34. CH: "I think the confusion was in the term "such theories." Does that refer to currently non existent (i) alternatives to evolution that *make sense*, or merely to (ii) alternatives to evolution.

      I think you are saying Coyne allows for both (i) and (ii) whereas I'm saying Coyne allows only for (ii)."

      A charitable interpretation of the above is that you don't understand what I wrote.

      I wrote: "Coyne refers to the current lack of other, competing theories." Translation: there are no competing theories at the moment; in other words, in existence. Your fine analysis of non-existing alternatives is completely irrelevant to my point.

      Delete
    35. CH: "You could rightly say he is a selectionist, that his conclusion hinges on selectionism being true (i.e., if evolution occurred, then it must have proceeded according to selectionism), and that his conclusion that creationism is true is false because the failure of selectionism does not spell doom for evolution, per se."

      This makes no sense. It's like saying that "if objects move, they always move according to Newtonian mechanics." There are well-known failures of Newtonian mechanics, e.g., the precession of Mercury's perihelion. But these failures do not invalidate Newtonian mechanics, they merely indicate that it has a limited range of applicability. Newtonian mechanics is alive and well. It covers a lot of ground well.

      Delete
    36. CH: "Likewise for evolutionists. In fact it is worse because creationists and IDs wouldn’t even recognize their version of creationism or design."

      Can you give us a creationist or ID theory specific enough to serve as an alternative to theory of evolution? I am aware of some creationist theories, but they make little sense and I am not sure if there is anything to discuss. I am not aware of any positive theory of ID. What IDists are usually saying is "evolution can't do that."

      Delete
    37. What IDists are usually saying is "evolution can't do that."

      That's their main squeeze.

      Besides trying to paint honest scientists as dishonest atheists.

      Delete
    38. oleg:

      So Coyne writes: “But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution” and “no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns” and you say he is merely referring to competing theories at the moment.

      That is not what Coyne wrote. But even if that is what he meant, his claims about special creation and what God would and wouldn’t are religious claims. When Coyne writes that “There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones” he is explaining his religious beliefs.

      How does Coyne know there is no reason?

      In responding, you again demonstrated a creative interpretation: “Coyne is right: we don't know of any reason why a designer of life would have to be limited to gradual processes. What's the problem with that?”

      But that, of course, is not what Coyne said. Coyne did not say “we don’t know of any reason why a designer of life would …” He said “There is no reason why a celestial designer …” That is a metaphysical claim about celestial designers. It does not come from science.

      Delete
    39. oleg:

      This makes no sense. It's like saying that "if objects move, they always move according to Newtonian mechanics." There are well-known failures of Newtonian mechanics, e.g., …

      Good, I’m glad you agree.

      Delete
    40. oleg:

      Can you give us a creationist or ID theory specific enough to serve as an alternative to theory of evolution? I am aware of some creationist theories, but they make little sense and I am not sure if there is anything to discuss. I am not aware of any positive theory of ID. What IDists are usually saying is "evolution can't do that."

      Can you give us an evolutionary theory specific enough to serve as an alternative to theory of creation? I am aware of some evolutionary theories, but they make little sense and have failed badly. I am not sure if there is anything to discuss. I am not aware of any positive justification for evolution. What evolutionists are usually saying is "God wouldn’t do that."

      Delete
    41. elijah said:

      "As almost every theist knows a transcendant designer would be timeless. As such slow or fast would make no difference to the designer. So we not only have good reason and know of a reason - we have reason based on the nature of the designer to think there is no intrinsic preference."

      Hmm, so you have no problem with a long, gradual (evolutionary?) process even though the bible says that 'God' created everything everywhere in six days?

      And I couldn't help but notice that you said "a" designer and "the" designer. Which is it? Why don't you just say the god in the bible? You don't and wouldn't accept any other so-called gods as the 'designer-creator', would you?

      "As almost every theist knows a transcendant designer would be timeless."? Almost every theist? Why not all? And how do any theists 'know' anything about any so-called god? You god pushers say that atheists, evolutionists, materialists, 'Darwinists', or even people of other religions don't and can't 'know' the "nature of" whatever so-called god you've chosen to believe in and worship but what you apparently don't realize is that atheists, evolutionists, materialists, "Darwinists", or even people of other religions have access to the same religious fairy tales that you base your beliefs on.

      In your case and the case of the majority (if not all) of ID-creation pushers those fairy tales are easily accessible in the bible and the many versions/interpretations of it. You thumpers don't have any special access or knowledge. The only things that you think you 'know' about your imaginary sky daddy are what's in the bible and your particular, convenient interpretations of it.

      Believe it or not I am quite capable of reading the same biblical fairy tales that you thumpers read, but unlike you I don't conveniently skip the inconsistent, contradictory, ridiculous, impossible, monstrous parts. According to the contradictory bible, your allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, loving, merciful, forgiving, designer-creator-god's 'nature' is actually dishonest, jealous, petty, demanding, threatening, sadistic, destructive, amoral/immoral, bigoted, murderous, and infinitely horrible. That you thumpers believe in, worship, and promote such an horrendous, imaginary monster says a lot about you.

      Delete
    42. Pedant:

      It's a hypothetical

      Oh, of course. We should have known, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread” is actually a hypothetical.


      I'm not seeing a rebuttal. Be a sport; outline a test.

      If there was ever a theory that failed on the science it is evolution. Yet evolutionists continue, of all things, to insist it is a fact. It has lost every battle yet won the war. And they insist that creationism outline a test. Too much.


      It's not a "proof."

      Then why in Gould’s essay on the fact of evolution did he point to the failures of creationism? Why did Darwin makes dozens of religious assertions and arguments to argue for his theory? Why did evolutionists consistently do this ever since Darwin? Why is evolution held to be true in the face of monumental scientific problems?

      Delete
    43. Cornelius,

      If you want to play the intellectually stimulating game "I am rubber and you are glue," you should go back to fifth grade. For now, I shall assume that you simply cannot name any alternative creationist theories. Fair enough?

      Delete
    44. oleg:

      For now, I shall assume that you simply cannot name any alternative creationist theories. Fair enough?

      I wouldn't even know where to begin. My point in my response was that evolutionists consistently demand of creationists that which they themselves have never delivered. For evolutionists to be asking creationists for specificity, testability and positive reasoning is the height of, well, something.

      Delete
    45. CH: How does Coyne know there is no reason?

      Other than "That's just what God must have wanted", what other explanation has been provided?

      Oh, you're denying there can be a distinction between idea that God *might* have a good reason - we just don't know about it - and the observation that creationism doesn't explain as much phenomena?

      Virtually every scientific theory would be subject to God *maybe* having some good reason to do anything, because he's supposedly all knowing and all powerful. So, apparently, science is held hostage by whatever logical possibility that any religious crank can come up with.

      Is that what you're really suggesting?

      But, what's worse is the irrational implications of your objections.

      If God being "sensible" does not constrain his actions, or the lack there of, in some meaningful way, then what does it mean to say God is "sensible"? The same can be said for God being "loving", "moral", or anything else.

      IOW, if we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which is an island in a sea of of inexplicability as your appeal implies, the inside of this bubble cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm. That dependence is implicit in creationism.

      Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well.

      God could have some good reason to stop pulling on objects according to their mass at the small scale. Does that mean any explanation of quantum gravity would be religious? God could have some good reason to surround the earth in a giant planetarium. Everything outside the atmosphere could be elaborate simulation that only makes it appear that that we live in a vast universe. This includes capturing and returning photons, laser pulses, and even returning space craft with false telemetry, just the right amount of missing fuel and implanting false memories of capturing false moon rocks. Outside this planetarium you could posit nothing or anything you want.

      However, these are general purpose strategies to deny anything you personally find objectionable.

      It's a variant of solipsism. You've just moved the boundary in which reason and problem solving cannot pass from our mind to the biosphere.

      Delete
    46. cornelius, are you going to define "evolution", as you perceive the meaning of that word, or are you going to keep running away?

      Delete
    47. OT: "For now, I shall assume that you simply cannot name any alternative creationist theories. Fair enough?"

      CH: "I wouldn't even know where to begin."

      Exactly my point. You complain that Coyne rules out every conceivable creationist theory, but you can't and won't discuss a single one. I am hardly surprised by your refusal to do so. I, too, would be embarrassed if I had to defend, say, baraminology or the hydroplate theory or variable speed of light. Because they aren't really alternatives to theory of evolution. They are silly stories, written by amateurs, that fall apart as soon as you touch them.

      So you return to the golden oldie: evolutionists don't have a theory themselves. I am rubber, you are glue. It's painful to watch, Cornelius. You had a fortune to get a Ph.D. at a very fine institution of higher learning. And what do you do with it? You serve as a propaganda hack. Oh well.

      Delete
    48. You complain that Coyne rules out every conceivable creationist theory, but you can't and won't discuss a single one.

      That does suggest a severe deficiency of intellect.

      Delete
    49. I am not aware of any positive justification for evolution.

      Have you considered taking a biology course?

      If there was ever a theory that failed on the science it is evolution. Yet evolutionists continue, of all things, to insist it is a fact. It has lost every battle yet won the war. And they insist that creationism outline a test. Too much.

      You don't have to outline a test if you don't want to, but we thought that testability was somewhat connected to the practice of science.

      My point in my response was that evolutionists consistently demand of creationists that which they themselves have never delivered.

      If you would lead by example, it might help us redeem ourselves.

      Delete
    50. pedant,
      That does suggest a severe deficiency of intellect


      Not at all, it just recognizes that is a no win strategy. The only possible winning strategy is to drive up your opponent's negatives when lacking any positives of your own.

      Delete
    51. Pedant, I think it is not necessary to push Hunter to lead us. We can take the lead and see if he can follow. We post one positive piece of evidence for theory of evolution, he posts one for creationism.

      We can even turn it into a drinking game: if Cornelius fails to post a creationist example, I will drink a glass of champagne. I am on a Ph.D. defense committee today, so I will have access to the wine. Help me stay sober, Cornelius!

      I will start with the Luria–Delbrück experiment, which demonstrated the independence of mutations from selective pressure in bacteria. The researchers won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

      Your turn, Cornelius.

      Delete
    52. CH: Then why in Gould’s essay on the fact of evolution did he point to the failures of creationism? Why did Darwin makes dozens of religious assertions and arguments to argue for his theory? Why did evolutionists consistently do this ever since Darwin?

      Because they are taking creationist claims seriously, as if they were true in reality, and that all of our other theories were also true, in reality, for the purpose of criticism. That's Popper's explanation for the growth of human knowledge.

      However, you're implying no distinction can be made. OK, let's take this claim seriously, as if it's true in reality…

      Are your objections are based on the assumption there can be no explanation about how God works, in reality. Would that be accurate?

      But what does that say about theism?

      Otherwise, explain to us why no distinction be made? Please be specific. I won't be holding my breath.

      CH: Why is evolution held to be true in the face of monumental scientific problems?

      You mean your straw man that everything spontaneously and randomly arose?

      And, by science, you mean… I forgot. Which kind of empiricist did you say you were?

      Oh, thats right. Not only are we waiting on a specific creationist explanation, but you've avoided my direct question regarding which specific philosophy of science you subscribe to.

      This is yet another example of the same handwaving we see here all the time.

      Delete
    53. Thank you Dr. Hunter for taking the time to school oleg. I found the conversation very informative.

      Delete
    54. We post one positive piece of evidence for theory of evolution, he posts one for creationism.

      I'll refrain from holding my breath. If Hunter condescends to reply, he'll probably deny that Luria-Delbrück has anything to do with "evolution."

      Delete
    55. It appears that there are no takers to my challenge. Maybe Cornelius is busy with classes. Or maybe this is a sign that creationism was never meant to be a competitor to theory of evolution. Dembski, one of the leaders of ID, in one of his frank moments, declined a similar challenge and explained why:

      As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

      It's precisely the omnipotence of the designer that makes it impossible to build a positive theory based on creationism. An infinitely powerful designer can create anything in any way he pleases.

      So all of Hunter's protestations that creationist theories are not allowed to compete with theory of evolution are crocodile's tears. He won't provide any creationist alternative because that would be "pathetic level of detail" that is simply not possible in creationism, whether young-earth, old-earth, or ID.

      Hunter knows this full well, so all he can do is turn it around and say "but evolutionists are even worse." No, they are not worse. Theory of evolution makes testable claims that can and have been verified. (See my previous comment.) Creationism is not a competing theory. It is merely denial of evolution in one or another form.

      Cheers, Cornelius!

      Delete
    56. Dembski:

      ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

      An honest admission that ID is not science.

      Delete
    57. "What IDists are usually saying is "evolution can't do that."

      That's their main squeeze"

      No. What IDists are usually saying is " intelligence does that. "

      Delete
    58. Eugen

      "What IDists are usually saying is "evolution can't do that."

      That's their main squeeze"

      No. What IDists are usually saying is " intelligence does that.


      Yes. There's never been any positive evidence put forward for ID anytime, anywhere since the "it's not Creationism, honest!" charade began. It's 100% attack evolution and "ToE can't explain this so IDC wins by default".

      You could easily prove me wrong by providing some positive evidence for IDC in biological life but you don't have any. No one does.

      Delete
  4. Gould,
    " Thus, the paradox, and the common theme of this trilogy of essays: Our textbooks like to illustrate evolution with examples of optimal design—nearly perfect mimicry of a dead leaf by a butterfly or of a poisonous species by a palatable relative. But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have always wondered what went before that quote" But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator"

      I believe the key world is " an" not " the" , postulated...Verb
      Suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

      Gould is not saying odd arrangements prove there isn't a designer, but optimal or ideal design would be evidence for design since evolution is constrained whereas omnipotence is not.

      Aren't all your posts about how complex thing are just substituting complexity for perfection after all. Since you have no proof that a designer would make life complex,is it religious as well?

      Delete
  5. Cornelius Hunter

    The “fact” of evolution has never been demonstrated without appeal to non scientific truths.


    Please give us you definition of 'evolution' as you are using the term here.

    Isn't it time you stopped with the lies and equivocations? Haven't you spit right in the faces of honest Christians enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, I'm an "honest Christian" and he's never spat in my face. And I've never seen him lie. Those sorts of comments say more about you than they do about him.

      Delete
    2. Ron Van Wegen

      Um, I'm an "honest Christian" and he's never spat in my face. And I've never seen him lie.


      That must be because you're new here then. Lying about scientific research and researchers is the primary tactic used by the paid Creationist propagandist. If you like being spit on that way then there's there's nothing anyone can do for you.

      Delete
  6. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”—Max Planck

    I'd simply point out this represents one of many theories of science. Namely Kuhn's.

    From the article: Short rejoinder to standard criticism of Critical Rationalism and Popper....

    6. Popper was subjected to effective criticism by Lakatos/Kuhn/Feyerabend.

    [...]

    6. As for the criticism from Lakatos, Kuhn and Feberaband: Lakatos invented “naïve falsificationism” to successfully confuse the issues. Kuhn at one point suggested that Popper should be criticized as a naïve falsificationist even though he was not a naïve falsificationist. When he retreated from his initial (and interesting) position to a more coherent (and less interesting) stance he conceded that Popper’s approach was correct at times of crisis, meaning a serious conflict between rival theories, which for Popper was practically all the time. Feyerabend abused Popper and his wife but in terms of substance he merely repeated Popper’s dictum that there is no such thing as “scientific method”. (emphasis mine)

    Would you say that there is no serious conflict between ID and Darwinism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. CH: Imagine if evolutionists were indeed merely testing some claims they had found in their favorite creationist journal. If that were actually the case, then the most evolutionists could claim is that they have falsified a particular theory of creationism. They would not be able to conclude that evolution is the only remaining alternative. There are many, many potential theories of creationism. They would have refuted only one of them and this would tell us very little about evolution. There would be one less competitor, but the monumental scientific problems with evolution would remain. And so would all but one of the competing theories.

    This isn't unique to evolution. Elsewhere, I asked you:

    are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils?

    We never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interoperation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are the explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation. However, we cannot criticize explanatory theories that have yet to be conceived.

    And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs were not there, millions of years ago, in reality..


    IOW, There are many, many potential theories of fossils. They would have refuted only a finite number of them. Does that tell us very little about fossils? Is there some magic number of finite theories we need to refute?

    Again, we start out with a problem, conjecture solutions to those problem, then criticize those conjectured solutions with the goal of discard errors we find.

    However, Logical possibilities are not explanatory theories. Nor can we criticize explanatory theories that have yet to be conceived.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” —Max Planck

    A lot of biologists have come and gone in the last 150 years, but the theory of evolution is still around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it's not at all well is it? In fact, it's very sick indeed!

      Delete
    2. By any reasonable measure of scientific vigor it's thriving.

      Delete
    3. No, only by a fideistic measure is it thriving, if you're talking about the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA. Otherwise, it's nothing but a set of millions of ad-hoc hypotheses with no criteria in place by which it can ever be rejected. And no, I don't have to have an alternative to see that.

      Delete
  9. well yes, when one goes about to replace an evolutionary theory, the only acceptable replacement is another evolutionary theory. ... unless you are Graur - it seems he's drawn a line in the sand for himself. It will be an interesting study to see if his opinions change much if evolutionists agree that the functions performed by "junk DNA" are significant. Maybe they are all just tie clips waiting for their turn to become the next mouse trap :).

    ReplyDelete
  10. "My thoughts of shoving my Son of God cock into Jennifer Anistons sweet ass has evolved into thoughts of shoving my Son of God cock into the Queen of England's sweet, though somewhat wrinkled, ass.

    You see, my children, evolution really is true."

    ------Jesus H. Christ, aka your blessed, horny Savior.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1 John 3:10 "By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother."

    ReplyDelete
  12. See recent paper at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.06.006 for more discussion of this topic. Can you access the pdf?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just re-read your OP, cornelius, and this statement of yours stood out:

    "Of course these claims about creationism and precisely what God would and would not do, are not from science."

    Well, if claims about what "God" would and would not do are not from science, that means that anything that ANYONE claims about what "God" would and would not do are not from science, whether the claims are positive or negative, and let's not forget that you ID pushers believe and assert that "God" is the so-called 'intelligent designer'.

    Dang, cornelius, you've killed 'ID' as a scientific inference/hypothesis/theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to be fair, when he says "these claims", he is of course primarily referring to the four claims above that he just listed, not necessarily any claims about God that might be made.

      This can be seen in the next sentence as it starts out, "Nor are the many other metaphysical claims..."

      Delete
  14. You need some serious psychological counseling, and the sooner the better.

    Because the way psychologists diagnose for dollars is as "scientific" as the way that Darwinist scum have worked with the State in the eugenics movement, I suppose.

    Why do Darwinists always need State funding? Why is it that many come full circle after their projection of colonialism and capitalism and Masonic "order out of chaos" creation myths onto biology to feed off the State produced by their memes?

    Your anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-reality religious indoctrination is severe.

    Should they sterilize him too?

    As long as you're going with Darwinian theology and the pseudo-science that produced the eugenics movement and so forth, might as well go full bore.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If god is omnipotent, can he create something so heavy, not even he can lift it? Or so hot not even he can touch it?
    Proof for evolution: Bacteria becoming immune to medicine, vaccines, and soaps. Bugs, Weeds, and fungus becoming immune to pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides. Different breeds of dogs (Human driven evolution) all look very different from the wolf. The Horse and Donkey can have offspring together (the mule) but are too far evolved from each other that the offspring is sexually sterile, due to some genes not carrying over properly(same story with other animals, like lion and tiger). DNA testing (which has sent people to death row, respected by court of law) Heritage, wild and modern tomato's look very different due to selective breeding. Genetically modifying organisms (GMO's) would not be possible if we didn't share a common ancestor. I personally have bread some of my own peppers by cross pollinating diff species and growing generation to generation. So i have seen human driven evolution with my own eyes. But not all is known about evolution. More data is examined every day, predictions are made based on the fact/theory. If something claims absolute knowledge, it is either wrong or lying. But out of the dozens of links between humans and apes, just because we haven't found one yet doesn't mean it didn't exist. Maybe it didn't fossilize, maybe its still out there. To ignore dozens of specimens due to the lack of one is illogical. I recommend opening a respected text book on the subject, and researching any further questions you have on the subject. If an answer is not known, then you will know why, and theories around the subject. You will never get a BS response like "evolution works in mysterious ways". That's a statement, not and answer.

    ReplyDelete