Refuting fallacious ID arguments and explaining randomness in biology for students

Faith & Science Conversation
43

Why do you ask? The same as Crick.

44

You claim he is a creationist and that you are well read on his views. So, prove your claim.

45

You said elsewhere, “The debate is not about evolution broadly defined. Many ID proponents have no problem with some sort of evolution, e.g. Behe believes in common descent. So, evolution in general is a broad tent that unifies many on both sides.”

The pamphlet is anti-evolution. I’m sure you’ll say it only against the “bad” kind, but it is against the general theory taught in science classes.

“I hope you are going to college because you want to be educated. But if the above examples are any indication, when it comes to the debate over ID and evolution, there’s a good chance that your institution has no intent to educate you, but to indoctrinate you in only one side of the issue.”

Implies ID and evolution is an either/or, not a unifying broad tent.

“I found that the more evolutionary biology I took, the more I became convinced that the theory was based upon unproven assumptions, contradictory methodologies, and supported weakly by the data. Thus, my first tip is to never be afraid to study evolution. But when you study evolution, always think critically and keep yourself proactively informed about a diversity of viewpoints”

"I quickly discovered in college that nearly all evolutionary claims are based mostly upon assumptions. "

“Finally, be careful to always think for yourself. Everyone wants to be “scientifically literate,” but the Darwin lobby pressures people by redefining “scientific literacy” to mean “acceptance of evolution” rather than “an independent mind who understands science and forms its own informed opinions.” Evolutionary thinking banks on you letting down your guard and letting its assumptions slip into your thought processes. This is why it’s vital that you think for yourself and question assumptions.”

“The Darwinian educational establishment doesn’t make it easy for you to become objectively informed on the topic of evolution and intelligent design, but with a little work on your own, it can be done. If you want to base your views on a full and complete understanding of the scientific evidence, you may need to take the time to pro-actively research and investigate the pro-ID arguments that many of your faculty may be opposing, misrepresenting, or perhaps even outright censoring. Yes, take courses advocating evolution. But also read material from credible Darwin skeptics to learn about other viewpoints. Only then can you truly make up your mind in an informed fashion.”

Presents ID and evolution as either/or

"Intelligent design is not merely a negative argument against Darwinian evolution or other material causes. "

It is an argument against evolution. Just not merely a negative argument.

“Biological novelty commonly appears in the fossil record suddenly, ‘fully formed,’ and without similar precursors or evolutionary intermediates.”

“Genes and functional parts are commonly not distributed in a “tree-like” pattern or
nested hierarchy predicted by common ancestry.”

“Studies have discovered mass-functionality for “junk-DNA.””

“Intelligent design does not conflict with evolution if by “evolution” one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry (Evolution #1 or Evolution #2). However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.”

The objection is to the normal theory of evolution, in other words.

46

This exactly corresponds to our lengthy discussion about defining the sort of ecolution that ID is disagreeing with, namely the empirical dysteleology sort. I am not sure where you think the contradiction lies.

47

No thanks. It’s not necessary. He’s condemned out of his own mouth with the junkyard tornado Jumbo, his denial of Archaeopteryx and the Big Bang (he gave us that) and claims of ET flu and AIDS. A great shame.

48

Ok so you concede Hoyle is not a creationist and your claim is specious. A claim unsupported is a claim retracted.

49

Dysteleological is the only sort of evolution.

50

Not at all, he was completely away with fairies. And one of the greats of science and science fiction.

51

The contradiction lies in anyone claiming ID is not anti-evolution. It clearly is.

1 Like
52

Only if you aren’t careful with your terms. If that’s what you want to do then go for it. ID is used to constant strawman arguments. It’ll be par for the course and meets my expectations :+1:

1 Like
53

I don’t feel any compulsion to make a distinction in terms that no one in science education makes.

54

Then say ID is not anti-evolution if you don’t want to make the dysteleological distinction, since it is flatly incorrect to say ID is against evolution in general. That is, if you care about fairly representing the ID position. I don’t expect you do, however.

55

It is perfectly valid to say that ID is against evolution, science and rationality, and in general, in particular, period. Which has no effect whatsoever on its dysteleology.

56

ID and evolution are mutually exclusive theories, and Discovery Institute obviously endorses one of those two positions. They think the scientific evidence points to an alternate (and mutually exclusive) conclusion. In that sense of course ID is “anti-evolution”, and no one would dispute that in any sense, but this would be a rather uncharitable basis on which to claim their pamphlet is a “kind of anti-evolution ID propaganda.” By that definition, is Biologos.org therefore a website full of a “kind of anti-ID evolution propaganda”?

ID as held by Discovery Institute, though, is clearly not “anti-evolution” in the sense of pushing the theory to be censored or ignored, rather they are simply pleading that alternate theories be given fair opportunity, and critical thinking about evolution be allowed. The very pamphlet you linked is a perfect example. It encourages its readers to study both evolutionary theory and alternate interpretations, albeit with an open mind and critical eye, and to make their own decisions.

It is a very odd “anti-evolution” propaganda that says “my first tip is to never be afraid to study evolution” and which encourages readers to “take courses advocating evolution.”

On the other hand, what kind of agenda must one have to take what seems such a fair, even-handed, and common sense plea as “Yes, take courses advocating evolution. But also read material from credible Darwin skeptics to learn about other viewpoints. Only then can you truly make up your mind in an informed fashion”” and see that as “Anti-evolution ID propaganda”?

A plea for students to fairly read and study both sides of an argument and make up their own mind in an informed fashion. What one-sided propaganda indeed!

1 Like
57

Ahh, a perfect example of the “no true scotsman” fallacy…

"No one in science education makes that distinction."
“All these science educators I can list make this distinction.”
“They aren’t true science educators…”

I think what you meant to say is:

I don’t feel any compulsion to make a distinction in terms that no one that I agree with in science education makes."

2 Likes
58

I.e. those who are sufficiently scientifically educated without the more is less of irrational pseudoscience.

59

As I said he denied evolution, so on top of his panspermia, which is NOT the same as Sagan’s and Crick’s directed panspermia, IS an nth more a rational hypothesis which has been continuously refuted with regard to life but not its precursors.

So, Eric, I was wrong to sloppily conflate his panspermian views with directed panspermia. But I’m not wrong to say that he was anti-evolution, he was. He was therefore creationist. He wasn’t just being objective. disinterested in claiming this is a fraud. He could not believe it. Any more than he could believe that the nucleosynthesis of carbon wasn’t fine tuning ID. I know that’s what unhinged him. It’s obvious. Anyone putting forward the specious, backward looking junkyard bullseye fallacy is a creationist.

Is this a false synopsis of his thinking? ‘…argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan’.

So again, I was wrong, I unreservedly retract the interpolation of directed to Fred’s panspermia, even 'though he almost certainly believed it.

1 Like
60

I’m confused about how anybody could identify Hoyle as a creationist. The poor man must be spinning in his grave - isn’t this the same guy who hated the notion of a universe with a beginning so much (for its creationist undertones) that he derisively dismissed and mocked LeMaitre’s idea as a “big bang”? So what if he entertained fringe notions of panspermia or such in a misguided attempt to dodge abiogenesis or whatever … to call him a creationist stretches the meaning of the word so broadly as to deny it any meaning at all.

2 Likes
61

As I said above:

That’s creationism isn’t it?

1 Like
62

Do you mean pro-evolution propaganda? In some people’s minds that is exactly what it is. The point of many of the articles is to get people to accept that evolution is a perfectly good scientific theory that the scientific community (the ones most qualified to evaluate it) accept as fact.

I don’t agree. I regularly teach my children “anti-creationist” arguments. I tell my children to study creationist arguments so they can see how flawed they are. It was the same principle at work in the pamphlet. Study evolution in light of what Discovery tells you and you will see how flawed it is for yourself.

1 Like