How much time have you spent on Evolution News and Views? I don’t think it is clear at all to the average layperson who visits those pages that the ID community “accepts the fact of evolution” unless by evolution you mean “change within a species.” (I realize that many of them do, but that isn’t the idea they market on their site.) Most of my friends are decidedly anti-evolution and they love Evolution News and Views because it often ridicules evolutionary theory. The rhetoric they use with the public seems designed to cast doubt on and undermine the claims of the scientific establishment with regard to its evolutionary biology basis. Calling Dr. Swamidass a computer scientist in their headline is a classic example.
2 Likes
Until recently I haven’t spent much time on EvN and that escalation of time spent there has to be fact-check as much as is within my abilities the content they are putting out on the Internet.
Average laypersons have a responsibility to make sure they know the position of persons they are pontificating about or criticising. Being a layperson isn’t an excuse for being shoddy.
By ‘fact of evolution’ I mean change in an allele frequency in a population over time.
That is different from the proposed mechanism in the theory to explain that fact and it is my belief that it is on this theory that ID protests.
It is right and proper given their views that EvN often ridicules that theory and seeks to undermine the claims of the scientific establishment with regard to that theory.
If it’s wrong it needs spoken of as wrong and the general public have access to the reasons why it is claimed wrong.
The current scientific establishment has no rights or privileges barring them being ridiculed or challenged on their claims.
- I’m not familiar enough with the work of the ID proponents to know if or what they have done to empirically test an ID hypothesis.
- I doubt Swamidass would concur that the current theory of evolution as proposed in established science is insufficient to give the best account for everything found in biological organisms. If he did concur then he would be taking the same position as ID proponents.
- I have seen panel discussions and debates between ID proponents and other scientists hence consider your claim demonstrably false.
- Engage science means engage with the established scientific community on the matters of disagreement on the current theory.
- I can’t speak for them with respect to every individual.
Where do you derive your information about what ID is doing o not doing as scientific research programs on cancer or other such matters?
The first sentence is referring to the claim from Swamidass about the EnV article where that EnV article speaks about Swamidass’ paper not discussing specific point mutation when it clearly does.
I don’t recall have made any claim that evolution is an argument for atheism?
The point about evolution being mindless, purely natural is that, if that were the case then humans are not necessary as a species on this earth which contradicts Christian theology where they are necessary. I don’t think the same holds true for your examples, i.e. what is postulated directly contradicts Christian theology.
I was wondering about this, Matt. If you go back and look at the dates,Swamidass’ comments to Jon Garvey were made on 9/14, while Gauger’s article was posted 9/20. Since all of the related EnV articles drew from this thread, it stretches all credulity to think that Gauger was unaware of Swamidass’ reply to Garvey, yet she went ahead and published a critique that ignored that reply in order to bolster her case. Do you not think that is a problem?
2 Likes
I rather doubt EnV are paying close attention to this discussion or my thread on G+… given that I don’t see any problem or feel that there is anything raised by Jon_Garvey they wouldn’t be able ot offer response.
Probably not anymore, since we are fundamentally boring. But EvN based all of the following articles on this thread, so wiping the slate clean by assuming that they aren’t paying attention doesn’t follow:
From Joshua Swamidass, a Gratuitous Drive-by Hit
Jonathan Wells September 22, 2016 1:58 PM
An Omission in Our Coverage of Dr. Joshua Swamidass and His New Argument Against ID
David Klinghoffer September 20, 2016 3:34 PM
Does Cancer Build Anything New? A Response to Josh Swamidass
Ann Gauger September 20, 2016 3:29 AM
Computer Scientist Joshua Swamidass Argues: Cancer “Casts Serious Doubt” on Intelligent Design
Evolution News & Views September 19, 2016 4:11 AM
They obviously are (or were) paying attention, or no articles at all would have appeared. As well, Gauger’s point-by-point response is drawn directly from a post made here by Swamidass on 9/13, and his reply to Garvey appeared less than 24 hours afterward. Gauger’s reply six days later takes into account the first but not the second, which happened to rebut her points prior to her even making them.
So, since Gauger conceivably could have rebutted the answers Swamidass gave to Garvey, she is off the hook? Isn’t this a pretty egregious case of cherry-picking facts to buttress her case?
As a former journalist, it’s pretty clear to me what EvN has done here. But … if you don’t see it by now, I’m not sure I can help you.
Edit: “buttress your case” changed to “buttress her case”
The article by Wells is not relevant at all since he clearly states in it he is not going to get involved.
The ‘Omisson’ article is further an irrelevance as it’s a correction to a previous article.
The other two are probably from different authors and are direct responses to Swamidass.
I find no case in any of this that they were deliberately avoiding a post by another member of this group but have already noted it warrants response.
Of course I concur with this. I think most scientists (including atheists) agree too. That is why there are journals seeking to extend what we know of evolution to explain more and more of what we find in biological organisms (PNAS and Molecular Biology and Evolution, for example) . If what was proposed in established science was “sufficient” no more scientific work in evolution would be happening.
Absolutely not. Agreeing with a truism does not place us in the ID camp.
Moreover, as a Christian, I believe that humans have immortal souls: something that cannot be produced by evolution. So even if we derinve a complete and correct scientific understanding of evolution, it still is not “sufficient” to explain the totality of life.
There are differences between ID and the rest of this, but the “sufficiency” of modern evolutionary theory is not where the divide lies. Sorry.
2 Likes
In that case, as I said, I can’t help you. There are such things as standards in journalism. If a website wants to put “News” in its title, it should be aware of them. Good luck with your project.
1 Like
So you concur that the current theory of evolution isn’t giving the best account for everything found in biological organisms?
If so, then you are just as much at odds with current scientific consensus as are ID proponents.
If not, then you are in line with that scientific consensus and at odds with what is proposed by ID.
By saying you would be in the same position as ID proponents I’m saying you’d be in the position that the current theory of evolution as proposed in established science is insufficient to give the best account for everything found in biological organisms.
The soul is not generally proposed as a ‘biological organism’.
I’m not seeking your ‘help’ and am aware there are standards in journalism from abysmally low standards to higher standards.
Nuff said .
I agree, it does not seem like they intentionally ignored the article. It appears the real situation is much worse. They just did not read it, even though it was published for several days before their response. Which is why I pointed out that this does not appear to be about science at all, but “something else.” If it was about the science, they would have taken the time to understand the position first. That was not a priority, as should be obvious.
And the Wells article is relevant, because Wells is on the record disputing mainstream science’s understanding of cancer. His protest of a “drive-by-hit” is about just a direct quote from a published article of his. I like Well’s article because it makes my point. If many ID arguments are true, most everything we know about cancer is false. Wells actually seems to agree with this point. I would also add that Gauger’s article seems to make point even more clearly, because her characterization of cancer is widely different than how cancer biologists understand cancer. As I explained to @Jon_Garvey
Ann does not seem to know this, and presents a different view. She writes:
Imagine that the oil in your car’s engine turned to sludge. The finely tuned machine will not respond well, even if the sludge is “novel,” an “innovation” in the system.
Does Cancer Build Anything New? A Response to Josh Swamidass | Evolution News
Interesting hypothesis. Turns out to be entirely false. Obviously so.
If this is the ID conclusion about cancer (as Wells and Rossiter independently seems to assert) I’m happy to report that my original point is even more clear. To accept many ID arguments is to reject large parts of what we have learned about cancer.
The current theory is not giving the “best” account because we are adding to it every day. The theory tomorrow is better than the theory today. This is exactly expressing the current scientific consensus.
I would add that ID has yet to add a single useful contribution to our understanding of biology. After 25 years of trying, none of their theories have panned out. None have been pragmatically useful. Given this track record, I doubt ID will ever be part of a better theory of evolution in the future.
This is not to say that science can ever give us a “complete” understanding of our world. Every scientist knows that we only seek to make provisional explanations of part of the world. Perhaps the confusion here is that you do not know how mainstream scientists understand their work?
Why do you think EvN would be obliged to read and/or respond to every article on an internet blog?
You have previously retracted your representation of Jonathan Wells on this very blog and stated that if you had the chance to re-do the initial article you would remove all mention of ID. Given this your response here seems to be going back on those statements.
I have already pointed out that the main article from EvN, in my view, is the response from Gauger. The other, again on my view, have little relevance to the issue of your initial post on here.
I have also already stated I’m not competent to evaluate the science but what I can evaluate is whether or not I think how members on this blog speaking of ID would be conducive or not to constructive dialogue. My view on that is most definitely not.
What you say is pure semantics… each day we have the best account of the theory… ID’s position is that on no day does established science provide any best account but a poor account. To that you do not concur.
ENV is not required to respond to every article in a forum. No one is saying that.
However, if they choose to write several articles critiquing a scientific idea, it behooves them to understand the scientific idea they critique. In this case, they decided to write several articles critiquing something about which they have little understanding. They have a right to do this, but it only makes them look uninformed.
You say you were reading ENV to fact check them. This is a great opportunity. They are wildly wrong on so many facts in this exchange it is hard to know where to start.
Yes, language is about semantics. It is about meaning.
I do agree that science, even when it is correct (as I believe evolution is), is only an incomplete (and in this respect poor) account of the world.
Where are disagreement lies is I do not think ID is offering a coherent account of the world. I prefer the YEC and Reasons to Believe model to ID, because they are at least trying to propose model’s of God’s action. ID studiously avoids this. With this strategic decision, it is impossible to imagine ID providing (even in principle) an account of the world (let alone a good account).
1 Like
I’m not aware of where you have produced a response - on the science - to Ann Guager’s article or to that of the article provided by Wells. Can you provide these?
Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
Established science is wrong with respect to the proposed mechanism by which evolution works
As for YEC it is such a laughably ridiculous anti-science position that it warrants no attention at all by any serious scientifically minded person, let alone a scientist.