A Not So Hidden Agenda
Anthropologist Tim Ingold’s
question for Andy Gardner at last week’s “New trends in evolutionary biology” Scientific meeting at The Royal Society should disabuse those who still don’t get it. Gardner had finished his talk, “Anthropomorphism in evolutionary biology,” in which he acknowledged the design in biology. But if Gardner's organisms are actually designed, an agitated Ingold demanded, then how would Gardner’s explanation for their origin be any different from William Paley’s natural theology which invoked design?
Anyone who has interacted with evolutionists knows this moment all too well. The metaphysics and religion are always there for evolutionists, crouching at the door and ready to strike at any moment. Whether in lecture, seminar, or writings, the agenda is painfully obvious. As Eva Jablonka put it, “Not God—we’re excluding God.”
Evolution isn’t about the science—it never was. It doesn’t matter what the science shows, evolution must be true. Religion drives science, and it matters.
As always you or any other ID-Creationist is free to provide your positive scientific evidence for the design and manufacture of biological life. As you have already noted, science doesn't control the media. Yet for some unknown reason you guys can't come up with even one tiny speck of positive evidence for your hypothesis, only attack current evolutionary theory.
ReplyDeleteYou could provide your evidence here on this blog, if you had any. But you don't, do you?
Well there you go again ...
Delete#MindOfAMonkey
We have already said how to test the claim that living organisms, their systems and subsystems were intelligently designed.
DeleteOTOH no one can tell us how to test the claim tat natural selection didit.
Better the honest mind of a monkey that the willfully dishonest mind of a Creationist.
ReplyDeleteYours is the mind of a monkey and it is a willfully dishonest mind.
DeleteNice own goal
It i9s a decided agenda to exclude God from natures origins/workings. its not just carefully being neutral about such origins.
ReplyDeletethese types that get into these things have a agenda. I don't mean a conspiracy but a presumption that they obey.
The idea of God is historic in science for origins over thousands of years.
So why is it now not on the table, nay, not the biggest dish on the table.
in the end dealing with natures complexity does force a need for the origin of the complexity and right away forces human minds to the historic conclusions.
Its not beautifully neutral waiting for proof of god in nature.
Its a presumption that god will be excluded and only knock out evidence introduce a creator.
its failing thinking.
Do you have a link to the context and complete comment? All I can find is the same brief comment in likeminded posts.Thanks
ReplyDeleteSorry, this concerns Eva Jablonka's quote.
ReplyDeleteTry this link and scroll down to the last paragraph. Iy's nothing written, but rather blurted out. This is as close as I found
DeleteSpecter of Intelligent Design Emerges at the Royal Society Meeting
“Not God—we’re excluding God.”
ReplyDeleteWell, if we are going to include God in this discussion which particular one should be pick. You may say it doesn't matter, but given each have vastly different creation stories and modus operandi, it surely must.
And besides, if we really don't have any evidence for God (or a god), then I'd agree with Eva, better to exclude God.
After all, we do that for all other sciences and it seems work quite nicely, why not biology too?
But CH if you disagree perhaps what you really need to do is provide solid evidence for the existence of God rather than railing against evolution. If you can do that instead, then maybe we can revisit the question?
There is plenty of evidence for an intelligent designer and no evidence that stochastic processes are up to the task.
DeleteHeck you don't even know how to test the claim that stochastic processes can produce a living organism using matter, energy and emergence.
There is nothing wrong with excluding God from science. All the sciences do it. The problem is evolution is such bad science.
ReplyDelete