Critiques of Science as Currently Praticed

  • Thread starter Sciborg_S_Patel
  • Start date
Perhaps a little recap is in order. This particular discussion of Meyer and the DI started in another thread which featured another video of a debate involving Krauss (have you heard of him, Bart? I ask because that seems to be your criteria for not assuming the opponents are DI ringers) and Meyer. The Wedge document came up in that and it was Krauss who used it in his presentation. Here's a snippet of commentary from the ID side after the debate pointing out some of the dishonesty employed by Krauss.



Why is it that scientific materialism should have such a privileged and protected status? Why is it that so many materialists insist on conflating materialism (metaphysics) with science (a method). Could it be that the DI are not the only ones with an ideological agenda? (And yes, I do agree that the DI has an agenda - that's what I've already said I'm not at all comfortable with). I just wish that funding could come from sources other than those with any kind of agenda.

I was not really talking to your point, my post was more a reaction against David's post, and the relevance to this thread.
This thread is supposed to be about critiques of science, in practice it is most about corruption of science driven by either, politics, ideology, or big money.

Now the DI, an organization which has the most immovable ideology, is highly politically connected , and has very deep pockets, is defended by David, in this thread?

The most amazing thing about that is that he does not even see the irony in that.
 
Spin? Why the aggressive posture?

Reread the quotes from the scientists regarding the biases that had been at work prior to this discovery. I see a corollary in how the scientific community seems to disregard new ideas that do not adhere to current consensus. For me that is a critique of the scientific community more than the scientific process itself (which is naïve). If I misplaced the article and my associated point, I apologize.
I am sorry, but i did not see my post as aggressive, i asked two questions, how are you going to spin that as aggressive?

To your point, i think the article shows the opposite of it.

The findings mentioned in the quoted article, are highly controversial, they go against almost everything we know about human or hominid presence on the American continent.

And yet the researchers get their paper published in Nature!, how is that disregarding new ideas? (another aggressive question)

The quotes from the article you mentioned have little to do with the actual new evidence.
And the archaeology mainstream is very unforgiving of researchers who challenge the accepted dates, said Al Goodyear of the University of South Carolina, who's been working to prove for years that stone tools found in a South Carolina site date to as long as 50,000 years ago
This is about another find, bolding mine:

"There is a lot of ignorance and arrogance about just how little we know about the Western hemisphere," said Goodyear, who was not involved in the San Diego discovery.

"These things are very controversial." But Goodyear says the San Diego team's evidence is compelling.

"I think they've done their homework," he said, noting that Holen is one of the world's leading experts on what mastodon bones look like when they are broken naturally versus when they are smashed open by humans.

"I think these sites are a wake up call to the profession," Goodyear added.
Maybe Dr Goodyear's evidence was not as compelling as the San Diego finding, that does not mean it was disregarded, it probably just was not enough. Perhaps it will gain more traction now.
 
You talking to a person who is 53 years old. You're not going to have good dialogue he's stuck in his confirmation bias and that's it. I can't wait till his generation and the rest of the closed minded useful idiots are gone (majority of them)
To let you in on a little secret, i am actually a thirteen year old girl that plays a dirty 53 year old skeptic on the internet to lure in trolls like you.

To your point though (if there is one?) you are going to defend the ideology based on stone age mythology, and you expect to come out of that as the progressive one?
 
I was not really talking to your point, my post was more a reaction against David's post, and the relevance to this thread.
This thread is supposed to be about critiques of science, in practice it is most about corruption of science driven by either, politics, ideology, or big money.

Now the DI, an organization which has the most immovable ideology, is highly politically connected , and has very deep pockets, is defended by David, in this thread?

The most amazing thing about that is that he does not even see the irony in that.

Bart, I am not sure that there is anyone on this forum who is qualified to make statements in absolute terms the way you do. It sometimes seems like you come here directly from Panda's Thumb or other such sites and repeat their diatribes. The only one who seemed to have a thorough grasp of both sides was Lone Shaman and I often wish he were still participating to answer your just-so proclamations.

Stephen Meyer, from what I have seen, is at pains not to push his religious beliefs. He almost pleads with his opponents to stick to the science and he usually more than holds his own when they do. Similar can be said of some of his colleagues. He suffers the most hurtful attacks on his credibility, his sincerity and his motives and he holds his dignity throughout. I wish that were true of many of his opponents and I'm sad that you see fit to join the mob mentality.

Whatever might be wrong with the DI, perhaps you could suggest where else people with a leaning towards ID could get funding for research? Or should those concerns about neo-Darwinism be censored even for people like me who are not religious but find NS/RM a wholly unlikely explanation.
 
To let you in on a little secret, i am actually a thirteen year old girl that plays a dirty 53 year old skeptic on the internet to lure in trolls like you.

To your point though (if there is one?) you are going to defend the ideology based on stone age mythology, and you expect to come out of that as the progressive one?

My point is why are you even on this forum, to me at least it seem like your mind is 95 percent made up and you are just regurgitating your confirmation bias from people you look up to or respect on that subject matter. I'm not saying you have to be swayed by any of the evidence (can I call it that mr skeptic?) contrary to you beliefs, but to me it seems you lack a sense of wonder, you seem rigid. As for Stone Age Mythology I find it to be really interesting, there is evidence they knew more than what was previously believed in mainstream circles. In fact you can argue Science was built off stone age/religious mythology. Those "stupid" "primitive" people have an uncanny accuracy to chart parts of our cosmos, and building the pyramids and many other things you can easily google and source
 
My point is why are you even on this forum, to me at least it seem like your mind is 95 percent made up and you are just regurgitating your confirmation bias from people you look up to or respect on that subject matter. I'm not saying you have to be swayed by any of the evidence (can I call it that mr skeptic?) contrary to you beliefs, but to me it seems you lack a sense of wonder, you seem rigid. As for Stone Age Mythology I find it to be really interesting, there is evidence they knew more than what was previously believed in mainstream circles. In fact you can argue Science was built off stone age/religious mythology. Those "stupid" "primitive" people have an uncanny accuracy to chart parts of our cosmos, and building the pyramids and many other things you can easily google and source
With you entirely Baccarat. The more I find out about ancient cultures, the more I am amazed at just how intelligent and generally incredible they are. "Stupid" and "Primitive" just doesn't describe them at all!
 
I am sorry, but i did not see my post as aggressive, i asked two questions, how are you going to spin that as aggressive?
The first time you and I interact, you ask a challenging question to a post of mine (perfectly reasonable) and without having the benefit of my response ask how I'm going to "spin" the answer? If you can't see the aggressive (passive or otherwise) posturing there, I can't help you further. Wasn't a big deal as my skin isn't that thin, but I wanted to point it out.

As for the article, I found the points regarding bias interesting. Clearly, you don't see that and I've explained my view twice now. That's cool. I'll move on.
 
To let you in on a little secret, i am actually a thirteen year old girl that plays a dirty 53 year old skeptic on the internet to lure in trolls like you.

To your point though (if there is one?) you are going to defend the ideology based on stone age mythology, and you expect to come out of that as the progressive one?
Bart, the ferocity with which you defend Darwinian evolution is concerning. You treat it as if you have some great emotional attachment to it. You've already posted two different comments in the last two days that are sarcastic and immature.

We've discussed this before, but you're entire argument hinges on attacking the DI. You never actually address the (legitimate) scientific issues that are raised against Darwinian evolution. Like, ever. You mention the DI in virtually every post and completely ignore the issues with Darwinian evolution, call anyone who supports ID a "creationist" (newsflash, anyone who believes that the universe is created by, or schemed up by, some greater entity, whatever that entity is, is a creationist) and say that they don't practice any science, and focus on points that are lateral to the main issue. There are real, actual issues with Darwinian evolution that are NOT supported by sound scientific evidence, and when people extricate themselves from the dogmatic obsession of evolution somehow being the answer to everything, they recognize those shortcomings are are willing to discuss it and address those holes.

Now, that doesn't mean that they can't also believe in common descent or even evolution at large - it's just that RM and NS as the major, overlying mechanism is a weakened theory and is continuing to be weakened. The other thing is, from your point of view you seem to think that people have to have purely religious motives for rejecting Darwinian evolution, which, if that's the case, is nonsense. There are people who believe in a personal, loving God who believe in only Darwinian evolution, who believe in YEC, and who believe in everything in between. Contrary to the narrative people like Dawkins love to peddle, Extended Synthesis is not at all diametrically opposed to the existence of God, unless you have a very limited or immature view of what God can be. The point is, you can easily raise concerns or issues with Darwinian evolution without invoking religion or God.

One of my favorite quotes with regards to this debate goes something like this: "Why do physicists worry about trying to find a Theory of Everything? We already have evolution!"
 
I don't see people like Stephen Meyer or others producing religious arguments at all, in fact I'd be amazed if any of those ID proponents that appear in debates believe in creationism. They don't appear to me to be arguing anything other than science.
"Appear" being the operative word here.
This is what i wrote about how the DI creates "science"
It has set up a closed system of it's own "scientific" institute, that publishes it's own "scientific" publication where the institutes "scientists" conveniently can have their "papers" peer reviewed.
This is going through the motions with the only purpose being the ability to claim "peer review" for their "work"

This is not science, this is not even pseudoscience, this is pretend science.
Can you produce one video clip or anything else, showing where Meyer gives any hint of arguing anything but science?
Can you show me the peer reviewed scientific work that shows what Meyers is talking about is science?
Can't a person be both scientific and religious?
Of course, a lot of scientists are both religious and good scientists, but they do not put their religious dogmas as starting point for their scientific work.
 
Can you show me the peer reviewed scientific work that shows what Meyers is talking about is science?

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

It's no surprise to me if he can't get papers peer reviewed, when obvious bias like that shown by you is also shown by many scientists. Science has shown itself to be ruthless in dogmatic defence of Theories such as Darwin's.

Atheists such as Krauss, Harris or Dawkins display the same granite-like pig headedness as any bible thumping creationist in my opinion. If Meyer is in fact part of that tribe, he will only be the atheists equal, no more, no less.
 
Last edited:
Bart, the ferocity with which you defend Darwinian evolution is concerning. You treat it as if you have some great emotional attachment to it. You've already posted two different comments in the last two days that are sarcastic and immature.
Dante, the post you react to was an answer to this:
You talking to a person who is 53 years old. You're not going to have good dialogue he's stuck in his confirmation bias and that's it. I can't wait till his generation and the rest of the closed minded useful idiots are gone (majority of them)
Tell me how to give an answer to that in a mature way.
Besides that, i am 53, so the use of smileys, or likes, is a bit lost on me. I leave it to the reader to figure out if i am joking or not.

We've discussed this before, but you're entire argument hinges on attacking the DI.
That was no real discussion, a discussion implies a back and forth.

You told me i wasn't worth discussing, and you more or less lectured me.
Finally i gave an answer to that post of yours, explaining why i believe that i what you wrote here is not true.

Since you never answered that post i must assume that you either did not read it, or you agreed.
here's what i wrote:

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.
 
Bart, I am not sure that there is anyone on this forum who is qualified to make statements in absolute terms the way you do.
Well, consider them qualified with a "IMHO", or an "i think", does that change anything about their veracity?
It sometimes seems like you come here directly from Panda's Thumb or other such sites and repeat their diatribes. The only one who seemed to have a thorough grasp of both sides was Lone Shaman and I often wish he were still participating to answer your just-so proclamations.
If you need LS to answer my arguments, how can you know they are just so proclamations?
As David so often says, think for yourself, all the stuff i am talking about is around, and easy to find.

Maybe that is not such a bad idea, and not only for you.

I would urge everybody too look into the history and founding of the DI with an open mind.
Look for material about the DI, not from the DI, and judge for yourself.

About LS though, if i remember correctly, most of what he wrote was also backed with DI stuff, especially the ironically named "evolution news" blog, maintained by the DI.
I believe he left in a huff over a discussion about the moon hoax, of which he seemed a proponent.
Also, for people who think of my style as aggressive, if i showed a only a fraction of the aggression, or tendency for ad hominem he did, i would be banned a long time ago.



Stephen Meyer, from what I have seen, is at pains not to push his religious beliefs. He almost pleads with his opponents to stick to the science and he usually more than holds his own when they do. Similar can be said of some of his colleagues.
How do you know? How are you going to judge what they say without the benefit of proper scientific vetting?
He suffers the most hurtful attacks on his credibility, his sincerity and his motives and he holds his dignity throughout. I wish that were true of many of his opponents and I'm sad that you see fit to join the mob mentality.
Please, Kamarling, spare us the drama, seems you are talking about a saint.
It is hard for me to judge how sincere Meyer is, for sure he is sincere in his belief in ID/creationism, and he is probably a nice guy.

But i wouldn't mourn his lost credibility to much, it gained him the status of some sort of a living martyr in his circle. His job with the DI is probably less in danger then any position in a scientific institute, given the current administration in the US.

I wonder if he knows what he does is not science. My personal opinion, he has sacrificed his scientific career for, what he sincerely considers to be, the greater good.

Whatever might be wrong with the DI, ...
Is not irrelevant.
You do not need to be so vague about what is wrong with the DI, it is outlined well in this thread, and a few others.
You can research for yourself, there is ample information available.
I am still waiting for one proponent to admit to that what comes out of their publication mill, is not science.

... perhaps you could suggest where else people with a leaning towards ID could get funding for research? Or should those concerns about neo-Darwinism be censored even for people like me who are not religious but find NS/RM a wholly unlikely explanation.
You are putting the horse before the cart, ID/creationism is a conclusion, not good a research premise in my opinion.
If one is interested to see if that is the right conclusion, i think the best way is, to study biology with an open mind, and try to find a research position in a biological institute.

If there are concerns about anything, anybody is allowed to voice those on whatever platform they choose.
They can be based on faith, myth, belief, the existing science, i don't care. I probably would not agree, but that is irrelevant.

It only becomes a problem if people try to claim science where there is none, let people make their own mind up about whether they want to base their beliefs on science, or faith.

What the DI does, is promoting a belief based on faith, and pretend it is science, that is simply not honest.
 
On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

It's no surprise to me if he can't get papers peer reviewed, when obvious bias like that shown by you is also shown by many scientists. Science has shown itself to be ruthless in dogmatic defence of Theories such as Darwin's.

Atheists such as Krauss, Harris or Dawkins display the same granite-like pig headedness as any bible thumping creationist in my opinion. If Meyer is in fact part of that tribe, he will only be the atheists equal, no more, no less.
Of course you are going to mention this one.
I guess you know, but that on was retracted, apparently it was never properly reviewed.
And of course the DI/ID/creationist crowd is going to scream conspiracy, but the result is the same, still no peer reviewed scientific work.
 
Dante, the post you react to was an answer to this:
Tell me how to give an answer to that in a mature way.
Besides that, i am 53, so the use of smileys, or likes, is a bit lost on me. I leave it to the reader to figure out if i am joking or not.


That was no real discussion, a discussion implies a back and forth.

You told me i wasn't worth discussing, and you more or less lectured me.
Finally i gave an answer to that post of yours, explaining why i believe that i what you wrote here is not true.

Since you never answered that post i must assume that you either did not read it, or you agreed.
here's what i wrote:
I read the whole thing and didn't think we were having a productive conversation and didn't reply. I do not think you seemed to understand a large portion of what I said, and found a lot of it to also be unreasonable. I didn't lecture you; maybe you should take note about the whole "stop saying everything is related to the DI" thing.

I will make an effort to respond. I apologize for not doing so before, that's disingenuous.
 
Well, consider them qualified with a "IMHO", or an "i think", does that change anything about their veracity?

If you need LS to answer my arguments, how can you know they are just so proclamations?
As David so often says, think for yourself, all the stuff i am talking about is around, and easy to find.

Maybe that is not such a bad idea, and not only for you.

I would urge everybody too look into the history and founding of the DI with an open mind.
Look for material about the DI, not from the DI, and judge for yourself.

About LS though, if i remember correctly, most of what he wrote was also backed with DI stuff, especially the ironically named "evolution news" blog, maintained by the DI.
I believe he left in a huff over a discussion about the moon hoax, of which he seemed a proponent.
Also, for people who think of my style as aggressive, if i showed a only a fraction of the aggression, or tendency for ad hominem he did, i would be banned a long time ago.




How do you know? How are you going to judge what they say without the benefit of proper scientific vetting?

Please, Kamarling, spare us the drama, seems you are talking about a saint.
It is hard for me to judge how sincere Meyer is, for sure he is sincere in his belief in ID/creationism, and he is probably a nice guy.

But i wouldn't mourn his lost credibility to much, it gained him the status of some sort of a living martyr in his circle. His job with the DI is probably less in danger then any position in a scientific institute, given the current administration in the US.

I wonder if he knows what he does is not science. My personal opinion, he has sacrificed his scientific career for, what he sincerely considers to be, the greater good.


Is not irrelevant.
You do not need to be so vague about what is wrong with the DI, it is outlined well in this thread, and a few others.
You can research for yourself, there is ample information available.
I am still waiting for one proponent to admit to that what comes out of their publication mill, is not science.


You are putting the horse before the cart, ID/creationism is a conclusion, not good a research premise in my opinion.
If one is interested to see if that is the right conclusion, i think the best way is, to study biology with an open mind, and try to find a research position in a biological institute.

If there are concerns about anything, anybody is allowed to voice those on whatever platform they choose.
They can be based on faith, myth, belief, the existing science, i don't care. I probably would not agree, but that is irrelevant.

It only becomes a problem if people try to claim science where there is none, let people make their own mind up about whether they want to base their beliefs on science, or faith.

What the DI does, is promoting a belief based on faith, and pretend it is science, that is simply not honest.
How do you not understand this? This ENTIRE post is riddled with "DI this, DI that". The motivation does not matter, Bart. It doesn't matter what their motivations are for doing the research. You have to actually assess it instead of doing what you have been doing all along: completely dismissing any and all evidence outright that is produced by anyone even faintly related to the DI, or more broadly suggesting that really the only "evidence" that ID or other opponents of Darwinism use is a product of the DI's misguided support or control. It's actually unbelievable reading your posts, over and over again, criticize the exact same thing, without you ever understanding why someone considers your arguments to be weak.
 
If you need LS to answer my arguments, how can you know they are just so proclamations?
As David so often says, think for yourself, all the stuff i am talking about is around, and easy to find.

Maybe that is not such a bad idea, and not only for you.

You don't make arguments, you make statements as though they are facts. My point was that you seem to be getting your "facts" from sources every bit as biased as the DI. I've been to those web sites and it is like reading extended versions of your posts: DI creationsists! Not science! Religious agenda! No place for God in science! Peer review! ... all attacks on the motivation and the people. Lots of insults but little substance. LS was impressive because he was well versed in the science and could answer Paul point for point in that long running debate (and to be fair, Paul knew his stuff too). LS did quote ID sources like Evolution News because that is one of the few sources where ID material is explained openly. There are lots of equally biased, atheist inspired sites such as Pandas Thumb, TalkOrigins, Why Evolution is True, No Answers in Genesis, Sandwalk Blog, Pharyngula ... the list goes on and on. In fact, it is difficult to find a site not biased in either direction and that is a problem for all of us.

I think it is rich that you, of all people, are telling me to think for myself when you come here and parrot what you read on those sites. At least LS had read both sides of the argument. I'm reminded of a review I read of Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt (I wish I could find the review now but haven't so far). The reviewer said the science presented was accurate and fair until Meyer introduced God as the designer. That left the impression that Meyer started out with the science only until he could turn it into a justification for his religious views - which is totally unfair because Meyer only talks about God at the very end and then only to explain that the question of the source of design is open but that he, personally, prefers to believe it is his Christian God.

Does it need repeating that many of the proponents here are not religious? I am certainly not. I have no Christian bias whatsoever and am often very critical of religious motivations. That's why the posts above demonstrate that people here see you as a fundamentalist just as much as the people you attack. If you were to show a little more open-mindedness, you might not be viewed with such suspicion. But your tune has been the same chorus of strident atheism for as long as I've been around on both the old and new forums.
 
Last edited:
What the DI does, is promoting a belief based on faith, and pretend it is science, that is simply not honest.
I think if you want to make a statement like that, you should back it up with a quote. From what I have read of the DI's output, they leave theological questions aside, and focus on the science. If you watched the video, you will see that they prevailed over and over based on scientific arguments. In fact, it was the other side that kept bringing God into the discussion to try to discredit the DI folk!

If they had been thumping a bible, I doubt if any of the proponents would have bothered to pursue the subject further!

Bart, it isn't just the DI, it is also this crowd:

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

They are scientists who definitely see the shortcomings of evolution by natural selection, but they seem to think there is a middle way that would replace natural selection with something that seems decidedly fuzzy right now. Now remember, that conventional science - of which Dawkins is an extreme example - have simply banged on the idea that natural selection solves everything, while privately acknowledging that it can't explain many things for exactly the reasons we have discussed here.

If (and I think it is a big if) the Third Way people are able to produce a biological theory that can replace NS (at least in the cases where NS obviously can't work) then fine - maybe it will be time to forget about ID, but what I object to, is scientists who pretend they can answer all the criticism of NS, when patently they cannot.

NS made far more sense in the time of Darwin, where the nature of genes was unknown, but they were assumed to be fairly simple things. This is because NS operates best where the are a sequence of steady improvements to be made - A,B,C,D,E,F. If B is more efficient than A, and C more efficient than B, etc, then one can see how this could work to bring about evolution. However, if the transition from A to B involves 100 steps which individually have no advantage to the organism - that is where NS fails, and the DNA encoding is exactly like that - half a gene for a new protein is completely worthless!

One of the things that helps the opponents of ID, is that nobody yet can make a video (not a simulation) of all the unbelievably complex machinery to be found in a single cell. Every bit of that machinery would require a long string of mutations to create it, and then, unless it was the last piece of something like the flagellum, it would be useless - so NS could not help in its evolution.

Come back Lone Shaman!

David
 
Back
Top