Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Aetixintro]

.
Well, well, you have it your way, no doubt. Here is more to the mix:

"Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?"
"Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books)."
"Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century."

The video, published Jul 22, 2019, recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy:



Not that I think we're going to conclude the discussion to any extent, but there are definitely two sides.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Aetixintro in post #21]

When Intelligent Design propaganda can identify how it could potentially be falsified yet passes every test designed to try and disprove it, only then will it be taken seriously as a competitor for the Theory of Evolution.

[Difflugia]

Not that I think we're going to conclude the discussion to any extent, but there are definitely two sides.

Since none of these guys' views of Intelligent Design could incorporate baraminology, you've now got at least three sides and any discussion involving David Berlinski assuredly has a side that's all his own.

According to Stephen C. Meyer, for example, the sort of discontinuities that baraminologists are looking for are the ones that happened duing the Cambrian explosion, 530 million years ago. After that, he's willing to posit that God occasionally threw a few de novo genes into the mix throughout evolutionary history (which is how humans can be qualitatively different than the other apes despite sharing an obvious evolutionary relationship), but the "big" creative event happened at the phylum level, rather than genus or species.

To put this in perspective, fish, birds, reptiles and mammals are all members the same phylum. In fact, of all the "kinds" explicitly mentioned in the Bible, only one isn't a chordate; locusts are arthropods. To get to a phylum-level difference, you need to start thinking about things like earthworms and sea urchins.

Lumping the various forms of creationist into the same "side" makes them seem far more unified than they really are. Even if any one of the people in your panel video were somehow correct, then the baraminologists are no less wrong. If intelligent design and young-Earth creationism are going to sit at the same table opposite evolution, then the only thing unifying them is the idea that science is wrong. They might as well grab a few more chairs for perpetual motion, homeopathy, and the flat-Earth.

[Miles]

Not that I think we're going to conclude the discussion to any extent, but there are definitely two sides.

Since none of these guys' views of Intelligent Design could incorporate baraminology, you've now got at least three sides and any discussion involving David Berlinski assuredly has a side that's all his own.

According to Stephen C. Meyer, for example, the sort of discontinuities that baraminologists are looking for are the ones that happened duing the Cambrian explosion, 530 million years ago. After that, he's willing to posit that God occasionally threw a few de novo genes into the mix throughout evolutionary history (which is how humans can be qualitatively different than the other apes despite sharing an obvious evolutionary relationship), but the "big" creative event happened at the phylum level, rather than genus or species.

To put this in perspective, fish, birds, reptiles and mammals are all members the same phylum. In fact, of all the "kinds" explicitly mentioned in the Bible, only one isn't a chordate; locusts are arthropods. To get to a phylum-level difference, you need to start thinking about things like earthworms and sea urchins.

Lumping the various forms of creationist into the same "side" makes them seem far more unified than they really are. Even if any one of the people in your panel video were somehow correct, then the baraminologists are no less wrong. If intelligent design and young-Earth creationism are going to sit at the same table opposite evolution, then the only thing unifying them is the idea that science is wrong. They might as well grab a few more chairs for perpetual motion, homeopathy, and the flat-Earth.

Excellent post.

.

[JakekeKe9]

I believe only in God

[Clownboat]

I believe only in God

Now there is a new level of faith!
Gravity, germ theory, basically all known science is up in the air, but a god that cannot be shown to be anything more than human imagination is what is believed in.

This being a debate site... makes it not the appropriate place to massage your faith though. For that you can go to church or do some street evangelizing.

[otseng]

Excellent post.

I believe only in God

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the Thank button. For anything else use PM.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

As such, it is impossible for anyone to ever discover if they are mistaken in believing a special creation myth or intelligent design claim during their lifetime.

How would that be impossible? Kinda depends on the myth or claim wouldn't it? If, for example, there was a book that claimed that birds came before land animals, yet the entirety of the fossil record showed this to be false, then wouldn't that be discoverable, verifiable information that shows believing in their creation claim is a mistake?

[bluegreenearth]

How would that be impossible? Kinda depends on the myth or claim wouldn't it? If, for example, there was a book that claimed that birds came before land animals, yet the entirety of the fossil record showed this to be false, then wouldn't that be discoverable, verifiable information that shows believing in their creation claim is a mistake?

If only that were the case in reality. Have you ever watched a debate with Kent Hovind? He is a master of post-hoc rationalizing his way around such inconvenient scientific truths.

[Kenisaw]

.
Well, well, you have it your way, no doubt. Here is more to the mix:

"Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?"
"Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books)."
"Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century."

Galileo came up with a basic theory of gravity in 1600. Archimedes (Greece) and Aryabhata (India) were two ancients that also did work on gravity long ago. Do we disregard the facts they used just because they are old? Then why would Meyer think that Darwin's work isn't as useful just because he came up with it in the 1800s? It's a rather idiotic argument on his part. The facts that Darwin used in his analysis are just as observable and verifiable today as they were back in Darwin's day. Notice that Meyer and the rest of them don't have a way to attack their existence or how they are used in the scientific method. No wonder complaining about how long ago Darwin did his work is what they stooped to - they can't defeat the data and empirical evidence.

Between that and the contrived nonsense that "beauty" is a sign of truth, there is no reason to take anything that they say seriously...