|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course that isn't true. If it was true then you would be showing us the reasons why scientists accept the existence of natural selection and then showing us that there were similar reasons for accepting design. And you're not doing that. You're not even TRYING to do that.
quote: You assert it, but the argument seems to be lacking. Even if you are only talking about past changes in evolutionary history and not changes observed in the present day (something which you would need to make clear if it were the case) you still have to deal with the present day evidence that natural selection exists and works - and explain why we should expect your "divine guidance" to produce results which appear to be so close to our expectations for natural evolutionary processes. Until you do that you have literally no case at all - just baseless accusations.
quote: Of course they don't say that at all. It seems that all you want to do is make accusations without providing any real evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course this is untrue, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. For instance the many intermediate fossils that have been discovered.
quote: Then it's a good job that I'm not doing that then. All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that evolution better explains the evidence than "divine processes".
quote: And I'm not doing that either.
quote: The whole array of processes covered by evolutionary theory - selection, mutation, drift etc. in all their variations. I don't see why you would find that hard to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
BIO-complexity is effectively their SECOND Journal, after the defunct ISCID. Which lasted something like 4 or 5 issues, even after lowering their already low standards.
I've got to say that accusing scientists of engaging in a double standard just because a leader of the ID movement claims that ID is scientific (a clear case of "he would say that, wouldn't he ?") is jumping to conclusions - and to specifically single out natural selection seems even worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: How about you start by presenting the evidence for your "divine guidance" and showing that it is equivalent to that fro natural selection ? Because obviously you already have that all worked out to back up the accusation of double standards in the OP. Really I'm amazed that it wasn't in the OP, because it should have been.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Since your "divine guidance" deals with the development of life over time, cosmology is even more distant from your point than the origin of life. I very much doubt that Davies even agrees with the idea expressed in the OP.
So your "starting point" is a controversial opinion which doesn't even directly address your claims. That is not a good start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That does not change the fact that it is only a controversial opinion - or the fact that it does not directly address the issue. That you should choose to start with such a weak point - and you have produced nothing more - simply demonstrates that you lack a sound basis for your accusation in the OP.
quote: As others have pointed out the scientists are correct. We do not try to work out the processes occurring today by speculating on origins - instead we rely on present-day observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: THe reason seems obvious - it's a piece of completely unnecessary speculation with no use for biological science at all. BUt let me remind you that the origin f the universe is not the topic - it is your claim that scientists are engaging in a double standard in preferring natural selection to your idea of divine guidance.
quote: Why would we need to know the origin of life ? What we need to know is how life developed over time, and as with any other scientific investigation of history we look at the processes occurring now and compare them with the data we have relating to the past. If we discover no incompatibilities we conclude that the known processes are responsible for past events. Where is the need for us to know the origins to do that ?
quote: And let us note that she does not propose that as specific to biological science but to all science. And it cannot be denied that science has been successful. (And I must also point out that there is nothing that rules out saying that there is no scientific explanation).
quote: I may say that but there is no doubt that a good deal of information ha appeared since the beginning of life and no reason to doubt that naturalistic processes are responsible for much of it. We have yet to discover an insuperable barrier that would force us to accept ID as a default - and so while ID has no valid theory to propose as an alternative (and I mean a theory in the full scientific sense of the word, not a mere hypothesis) ID must still lose, even if the supernatural were admitted into science. That is the nature of science - we do not abandon a working theory for mere unknowns - it will only be abandoned if it becomes hopelessly unworkable or if a better theory is proposed.
quote: No, it does not. ID does not deal with real, relevant probabilities.
quote: No, I think he's some form of theistic evolutionist. Probably even further from creationism than the former creationist Michael Behe's current position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'll let others handle the science, although it seems that you fail to understand even the most basic points (Behe primarily is arguing against the adequacy of known mechanisms of mutation, rather than natural selection).
quote: Firstly if Behe says that, he's lying. His own theoretical paper with Snoke WAS published (although it must be said that the results did not in fact provide any significant support for ID). And you did not hear about any such case as you describe. You are referring to Richard Sternberg. His resignation as editor was planned and occurred BEFORE the paper was actually published (he had kept it secret from the other editors so they didn't know about it). Some significant facts to note: 1) Sternberg is a member of the ID movement2) Sternberg violated the procedures of the Journal (a very suspicious thing to do when there is a clear conflict of interest) 3) The paper was a rewrite of one that had already been published elsewhere (although not in a peer-reviewed journal) I understand this to be unusual practice. 4) The journal in question was not a natural home for the paper, if Meyer were simply looking for publication it should have been submitted elsewhere.. While there is only limited evidence available it looks very much as if Sternberg abused his position as editor and conspired with Meyer to get the paper published regardless of its merit (or rather, lack of merit). As with the case of ID's own journals it is significant to note how little the ID movement has to offer here - one rehashed review paper is not a great showing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In fact your posts display a pattern of evasion and avoidance. You have utterly refused to back up your original accusation of a double standard, showing that it was completely baseless. And that illustrates the lack of moral and intellectual honesty typical of the ID movement - which all too clearly illustrates it's devotion to apologetics and dogma over true Christianity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024