I don’t believe they say that. I believe they say real biologists don’t make the distinction between micro and macro evolution that creationists make.
Yes it was. He was talking about a situation back in 1937 which does not exist now.
But you haven’t provided any evidence for this.
And that is what he says. And it’s wrong. But you said “there continues to be dispute over whether one mechanism governs the whole process in a continuous way, or whether at some points other mechanisms kick in”, and that Denton isn’t intellectually honest for raising that issue. And I agreed. I pointed out that it’s fine for him to raise that issue. But it’s wrong for him to misrepresent that issue as if it is evidence for the same micro/macro-evolution argument as Ken Ham and the YECers.
Yes it is. It doesn’t matter how many people hold an intellectually dishonest position, it’s still intellectually dishonest.
I am arguing against their position. I’m pointing out that one of their key arguments simply isn’t true. And please be clear on this, do you accept macro-evolution or not?
I see that we have gotten bogged down in the Darwinism vs ID again. I was hoping we could discuss a different track.
As you know Darwin’s theory has two aspects, 1) Variation which is genetic and random, and Selection which is not genetic and determinate. The problem with both neoDarwinism and ID is they focus exclusively on Variation and not at all on Selection.
NeoDarwinism wants to say that evolution is random, because genetic Variation is random, but since Selection is determinate and comes after variation, the Process of Evolution is not and cannot be random, but it is determinate. This throws neoDarwinism off because it is wrong when it says that evolution is random.
ID and friends want to say that God somehow predetermined the process of genetic change. This might be “front loading” so the right genetic changes take place at the right time or by some sort of external impetus so the right changes take place at the right time.
Neither view to my observation gives Natural Selection its due as being determinate. Both are a narrow linear view of genetic change resulting in evolution. However nature is not two dimensional, but three dimensional plus time. God uses the ever changing environment to “guide” plants and animals into an ever more diverse world.
God does not think in narrow linear two dimensions and neither must we in terms of science and theology.
Four actually. Natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow.
I don’t know who these “neoDarwinists” are who want to say that evolution is random. I keep finding creationists and IDers saying evolution is random. I keep finding scientists saying evolution isn’t random.
The statements you quote are about Selection, which is, as I said, determinate. However the problem with the quotations is that they really do not say anything, because they are circular. As Karl Popper pointed out some time ago. Survival of the fittest indicates that the fittest survive, but How can we know if a life form is fit? It is fit if it survives.
Selection indicates a determination based on definite criteria. Darwin wrote that Natural Selection determined fitness based on the perfection of the species, whatever that means. Darwinism did not have any real criteria or criterion, so selection must be random despite what Bill Nye says.
Selection is only scientific if it is based on science, not circular reasoning. If we say something happens, but have no scientific explanation for how and why, then we are talking in the realm of magic. This is the problem that I am trying to address, even though almost everyone does not seem to recognize it.
So the problem is a peculiar blindness or selective vision that many scientists have about evolution. For me the shame of it all is that the answer is most evident in the form or Symbiosis and ecological science. Nonetheless even scientists are accustomed to old ways of thinking and are reluctant accept new models of reality, esp. when the topic is as controversial as evolution.
He said “We can’t be sure of X right now”. Later scientists became very sure of X, because of the abundant evidence for X. So citing his comment from 80 years ago as if the same situation still prevailed, was irrelevant.
No. That isn’t in dispute. But they’re a tiny minority.
That is not how he comes across to me.
But they aren’t touting it as “frankly evolutionary”. They are still touting it as arguing that evolution is “a theory in crisis”. Looking at these statements by the Discovery Institute, it’s difficult to avoid the fact that they’re a creationist organization.
“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built”
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
“Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture”
"GOALS: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. "
And yes I am approaching this from the perspective of a Christian. I am a devout Christian and fully committed to the Apostles’ Creed.
Actually they’re about evolution, and the explain explicitly that evolution is not random because it involves non-random determinate processes such as natural selection.
No they aren’t. Natural selection is testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s simply a scientific fact. Most creationists don’t even bother contesting it.
I used to think symbiosis was evidence against evolution, but I learned better.
It’s easy to understand what Evolutionists are trying to say.
If Evolution were “JUST RANDOM” then the idea that ecological forces can shape the phenotype of a mammal to make a WHALE would be virtually impossible…
… randomly, the mammal might become a whale… or a bird… follow ?
Consulting the scholarly consensus. Again, all you’re doing is manufacturing controversy. It’s like saying there are scientists who contest anthropogenic global warming. Yes there are, but the number is insignificantly small.
If you read the Wedge Document you will understand exactly why they are doing this. They are attempting to represent these works as effective counter-arguments to the kind of evolution they oppose.
I see no evidence for this claim. I see them saying “human beings are created in the image of God”. That is explicitly creationist. It is not atheist, agnostic, or deist. They explicitly used the word “created”. The fact that it doesn’t necessarily imply a literal interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. It is an explicit statement of creationism.
Yes. But I would prefer you be more specific so people aren’t confused.
It uses “created” and “creationist” specifically in opposition to evolution. So they’re as creationist as Ken Ham, despite the fact that their brand of creationism is different to his.
But it doesn’t endorse those arguments of theirs which are explicitly evolutionary and inherently anti-creationist. It argues against scenarios which are explicitly evolutionary and inherently anti-evolutionist. So they’re not fooling me, I’m afraid.
If natural selection is testable, observable, and repeatable, where are the tests and observations in the literature? Where is the evidence? I am not a creationist. I am scientifically oriented person who wants the facts, because God is God of the facts, not the God of the gaps.
I am not against evolution per se. I am in favor of evolution, because God is the God of Change, but it has to real change, not change for the sake of changing. Symbiosis is the basis of real evolutionary thinking that can save the planet, not fake “selfish gene” evolutionary thinking that will destroy the planet.
In other words God is the God of Truth (Logos), not the God of human ideology. Dawkins does not scientifically validate his thinking. Can you?
Since Jon has failed thus far to respond to this challenge, although he has responded to others, maybe he needs some help which I am ready to provide.
First, let us begin which the quote he provided above for natural selection.
“natural selection weeds out unfavorable variations and greatly improves the likelihood of events.” Donald Prothero in the Philosophy of Biology, 2007
Now there are problems with this definition. It describes a negative process in that it “weeds
out.” It does not define the meaning or content of “unfavorable” or “events.” Nor does it specify the way this process works. This is why Popper rejected Darwinian natural selection as a scientific theory, because it is so vague that it cannot be tested or falsified.
Second, even though it is hard to apply, it really cannot be used. Let us look at an evolutionary event which is well known to almost all, the extinction of the dinosaurs and see if this definition or others used by Darwinians make sense.
In the extinction of the dinosaurs did natural selection weed out “unfavorable variations?” No, unless one considers the whole class of dinosaurs with the exception of the avian dinosaurs as unfavorable variations. They are very successful variations before the climate changed drastically. The determining factor was not genetic changes in dinosaurs, but environmental change, so the environment must have something crucial to do with Natural Selection unless this was a random, one of a kind event, which would make Natural Selection random.
Everyone knows that it was not competition within dinosaurdom or competition with mammals that did in the dinosaurs, It was climate change and changes on the environment which did in the dinosaurs and opened up new ecological niches that allowed mammals to multiply and thrive.
The story of the avian dinosaurs is telling. While the other dinosaurs got larger, they got smaller, better to conserve energy and require less food. They also grew feathers for better insulation to conserve energy. Also they were able to take advantage of rich untapped food sources found in the air.
Thus traditional concept of Natural Selection is the Achilles heel of Darwinism revealed by the coming of age of the science of ecology in today’s world.
Actually Roger I haven’t responded to anyone since you posted that, because I’ve been away for several days. Let’s look at your statement.
The literal is full of the tests and observations. This is covered in high school level science, and the literature on the fact of natural selection is vast. The number of tests and observations is simply immense, from the Galapagos finches to penicillin-resistant bacteria. You can find more on this here (along with useful examples).
This is irrelevant because the quotation was not a definition of natural selection. In any case, a definition of natural selection does not need to define the meaning or content of “unfavorable” or “events”.
Actually no, Popper later changed his mind. Natural selection is not vague, and it is both testable and falsifiable.
That’s a great example.
Yes. All those dinosaurs which were insufficiently equipped (“unfit”), to survive in the new environment, became extinct. That’s natural selection right there.
This indicates you do not understand natural selection. Of course the environment has something crucial to do with natural selection; the environment is one of the key agents of selection.
Exactly. That’s natural selection by definition. It doesn’t have to involve competition among species.
