Likewise, many dogmatic scientists work backwards from the assumption that their conclusion about blind physical forces and random chance creating life today as we know it. So, that's again complete nonsense. It cuts both ways.
That is simply not true, the theory of evolution is based on observation, and evidence, not on dogma.
In the days of it's inception, there was no dogma to defend, on the contrary it replaced the oldest dogma in the world.
However, it is true that many scientist base their work on the foundations laid by the ones that came before them, that is not dogma, that is how science works.
The field of evolutionary biology is completely open to change through the normal process of research and peer review. This certainly can result in some inertia to accept new ideas, but that can be expected.
Now, do you think the ID crowd is going to change any of their ideas under any circumstance?
Bart you are hardly worth discussing this issue with.
What is this post then, a lecture?
You outright blindly dismiss all criticism of evolution ...
No, i opposed very specific claims made in this thread, i provided links that imo showed these claims wrong.
Please tell me which criticisms of evolution i blindly dismissed?.
... and consistently assume that everything goes back to the DI or ID, while blatantly ignoring when people challenge you with non-ID sources.
Well that is because most of the names mentioned are directly connected to the DI, Berlinski is a senior DI fellow, so is Meyer.
Axe is the director of the Biologic institute, which is funded by the DI.
The Biologic institute publishes the
BIO-Complexity Journal, in which Axe and the other discoverites publish most of their 'work.'
Peer review is a lot easier if you keep it in the family, you know.
The third way movement, is interesting, but it is also a very big tent.
if i take a look at the list of authors, and their work, they represent a very wide range of viewpoints.
To me they look a bit to heterogeneous to be one movement.
But, at first sight, most of them seem honestly frustrated scientifically or philosophically.
David said the most valuable thing in this thread: that just because you don't have a replacement theory, does not make the criticism worthless.
David said a lot of things in this thread, without giving any reference, something he threatened to ban people for in other threads.
But this is one i might agree with, although it does not apply to evolution. I do not think evolution is shown to be a "phoney explanation", to use his words.
I personally believe in common descent (important note, since you seem to think that everyone who disagrees that RM, NS and chance got us here today: lots and lots of people who have huge issues with evolution by that mechanism still buy into common descent), and I believe in evolution. But it seems obvious to me, based on the information available, that evolution by RM and NS is not nearly the whole picture.
NS is not the only selection mechanism known, there is genetic drift, sexual selection, migration.
None of these are controversial.
also RM is not the only mechanism, there is epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis.
In itself, maybe these are not controversial, but to what degree they (have) play(ed) a part, is certainly ground for healthy scientific debate.
And then there is the question whether DNA maybe has a deeper layer we do not fully understand.
Does this mean that those mechanisms weren't involved? Of course not. They sure seem to be very involved. But there are plenty, and I mean plenty, of issues with the extended synthesis and gene centric view of evolutionary theory. That criticism is both valuable and significant, even if you don't have a replacement theory. A negative result in science is 100% every bit as valuable as a positive one.
I agree, up to some level, but it is not clear to me what has been shown to be a negative result, and by whom.
On the other hand i would be very cautious about anybody who wants to claim a negative result, but already has a faith based replacement in mind.
I think the DI ,and all of it's subsidiaries, definitely fall into that category.
You do not have to take my word for that, research them a bit, their origin, their founding document, etc..
If you really are interested in the legitimate scientific controversies that live at the edge of the research, your viewpoint would probably be further from theirs than from mine, even if we would be at the opposing end of these legitimate controversies.