Behe's argument in Darwin Devolved

#21
That's what I "believe" as well, but we both are being fallacious about it. :)

After all, if we were having this conversation 1,000 years ago we would have made similar statements about things that are considered mundane by comparison today.
Yes, but where is your proof? If I said the earth is flat, it wouldn't take you long to come up with an experiment that would force me to think again.

Behe has come up with a new idea (did you read what I wrote at the start of this thread?) that is a very strong argument to back up the intuitive idea that RM+NS cannot achieve very much.

David
 
#22
Here is an interesting interview of Stephen Meyer by Ben Shapiro’s. After about 2 minutes of a senseless advertisement for a life insurance company (actually read by Shapiro himself!), it really covers the evidence for ID very well indeed - although I think it came out before Behe's new research.


David
 
Last edited:
#23
Yes, but where is your proof? If I said the earth is flat, it wouldn't take you long to come up with an experiment that would force me to think again.

Behe has come up with a new idea (did you read what I wrote at the start of this thread?) that is a very strong argument to back up the intuitive idea that RM+NS cannot achieve very much.

David
I’m of the opinion that the “accidental mutation” mechanism of theory is so popular because its the best they can come up with. And since they KNOW (a-priori) that there’s no intelligence behind the formation of the universe, what else could they believe? It HAS to be an accident, and since it HAS to be an accident, what else could it be other than genetic mutation? If I were a materialist I’d believe the same thing. If you start with the assumption that materialism is correct, are there any alternatives?

But we know that consciousness affects matter through the following phenomena

1) The Psi research
2) Quantum Physics
3) The placebo effect
And there are others, but they aren’t as scientifically established.

Given this, along with the astounding improbability that bodies form on accident from random colliding particles, along with the hard problem of consciousness, I think the reality of some form of ID is readily apparent. Of course I reject the popular Christian notion of ID. But I find that more probable than the popular materialist explanation.
 
Last edited:
#24
I think it is worth throwing this into any discussion about evolution:


It is another interview with Donald Hoffman, that pushes his ideas a little further.

In a way his ideas also connect with Behe's ideas in the sense that both contain the idea that evolution by NS doesn't do what we think!

You may want to skip the first few minutes until you hear Donald Hoffman start speaking.

We really should have this guy on Skeptiko!

David
 
Last edited:
#26
I find sheldrakes arguments toward the idea of “morphogenetic fields” pertinent towards any discussion of the idea evolution. No doubt his theories are not right in all regards, but the data he cites is very strong evidence that some other force is helping to shape the formation of living matter. I particularly find it interesting when he states that DNA has no known property or propensity towards directing proteins to be built in certain shapes and directions.

 
#27
That is an excellent description of Sheldrake's idea of a morphogenetic field, and it illustrates most clearly why he chose to describe his hypothesis as a field.

I think it is worth pointing out that his fields are intentional - maybe conscious - I mean all those limb reintegrations are done with the intention of restoring the normal limb.

David
 
#28
OK, got Behe's book on order. It has pretty high Amazon ratings despite being targeted by the religious nihilism crowd. Looking forward to it.

I will read it with a neutral to critical eye, as an evolutionist.
 
#29
That is an excellent description of Sheldrake's idea of a morphogenetic field, and it illustrates most clearly why he chose to describe his hypothesis as a field.

I think it is worth pointing out that his fields are intentional - maybe conscious - I mean all those limb reintegrations are done with the intention of restoring the normal limb.

David
Totally. To me, Sheldrakes idea of “morphogenetic fields” are roughly analogous to the idea of “collective consciousness.” Which we are all part of. That’s how I see it anyways. It’s a directive and self aware, creative force of which we are all part. And this is what I think of the idea of Intelligent Design as well. These things are roughly analagous in ways we don’t understand, but I think the connection To consciousness is there. And I believe that all current living creatures are playing a part in deciding “design” or “physician and psychological” evolution.
 
Last edited:
#30
Totally. To me, Sheldrakes idea of “morphogenetic fields” are roughly analogous to the idea of “collective consciousness.” Which we are all part of. That’s how I see it anyways. It’s a directive and self aware, creative force of which we are all part. And this is what I think of the idea of Intelligent Design as well. These things are roughly analagous in ways we don’t understand, but I think the connection To consciousness is there. And I believe that all current living creatures are playing a part in deciding “design” or “physician and psychological” evolution.
Yes - we mustn't identify ID with Yaweh - far better to identify it with Sheldrake's ideas. And indeed what Sheldrake is implying is that evolution may be far less about changing DNA, and far more with changing the MF! I mean, most of the protein-specifying DNA codes for stuff that we have in common with yeast! I mean, how much are slight variations in succinic dehydrogenase (to pick a metabolic enzyme at random) going to make to an organism anyway? To really move an organism in a new direction you probably need to modify Sheldrake's MR.

David
 
Top