Discovery Institute May Have Hit a New Low?

[Jesse_England]

I should have done some editing theories not one theory that’s my bad

[John_Harshman]

He means “Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis”.

[Michael_Okoko]

One has to wonder how a theory in crisis has immensely contributed to investigating and resolving the current pandemic.

[Tim]

@Michael_Okoko

One has to wonder how a theory in crisis has immensely contributed to investigating and resolving the current pandemic

Given that creationists have been predicting the imminent demise of the Theory of Evolution practically since Darwin first proposed it (there’s a timeline of such predictions somewhere, I believe), there hasn’t really been a time when it wasn’t purportedly “in crisis”.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Jesse_England

I’m not a expert nor a scientist on evolution or Intelligent Design however I wonder if the discovery Institute would shift gears or reform towards more emphasis on a positive philosophical and scientific case for Design and less of emphasis on anti evolutionism but still questioning certain parts of Neo Darwinian evolution (if that makes sense) for example debunking junk DNA while still accepting guided common decent.

I don’t think you understand the DI’s reasons for existing. The DI, like creationists more generally, simply does not care about any of the scientific issues as such. It cares about these issues only to the extent that it sees evolutionary biology as standing in the way of its ideological and political agenda. “Anti-evolutionism” is the point itself; you can’t serve the DI’s goals without it. It’s a mistake to think that they’ve somehow got a respectable and honest position on a scientific issue and that the culture-war aspects of their work are merely some sort of accidental blunder by the DI into other matters. The opposition to western scientific culture and to the western liberal tradition ARE the point, and there simply is no legitimate scientific posture of any sort involved here.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jesse_England

I’m not a expert nor a scientist on evolution or Intelligent Design however I wonder if the discovery Institute would shift gears or reform towards more emphasis on a positive philosophical and scientific case for Design and less of emphasis on anti evolutionism but still questioning certain parts of Neo Darwinian evolution (if that makes sense) for example debunking junk DNA while still accepting guided common decent.

If their goal was producing good science, they would do exactly what you suggest. However, it has been obvious for a while that the DI is much more about protecting certain beliefs than in supporting them with evidence.

As I have often noted, if you attend a scientific conference you will never witness a presentation where a scientists says, “Since I could not find any evidence for Intelligent Design, I therefore concluded that it had to evolve”. Intelligent Design is never mentioned. What is presented is positive evidence for evolutionary pathways. The contrast with Intelligent Design is quite stark.

[pnelson (Paul A Nelson)]

@T_aquaticus

As I have often noted, if you attend a scientific conference you will never witness a presentation where a scientists says, “Since I could not find any evidence for Intelligent Design, I therefore concluded that it had to evolve”. Intelligent Design is never mentioned.

“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution – paths that a sensible God would never tread, but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.”

– Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980

“Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil-fields and species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body parts of certain land crabs on only certain islands in the Caribbean?..Is the Creator again playing practical jokes?”

– T.H. Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” ABT 35 (1973):125-129.

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of individuals.”

– Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@T_aquaticus

As I have often noted, if you attend a scientific conference you will never witness a presentation where a scientists says, “Since I could not find any evidence for Intelligent Design, I therefore concluded that it had to evolve”. Intelligent Design is never mentioned. What is presented is positive evidence for evolutionary pathways. The contrast with Intelligent Design is quite stark.

Underscoring that point is the fact that Paul Nelson was unable to come up with a single contrary example. What the point of his latest post is, of course, nobody can guess since it clearly is not a response to yours despite quoting it.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jesse_England

I should have done some editing theories not one theory that’s my bad

It’s still very bad. There is no theory of abiogenesis, just hypotheses. Do you understand the difference?

The RNA world hypothesis is the closest hypothesis to being promoted to a theory, but it is about early life, not abiogenesis. Are you familiar with it, and more importantly, the strongest evidence supporting it?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Get informed with this Q&A:

Q&A on “A Compromise on Creationism”

[Jesse_England]

Yes sir I’m sorry to be perfectly honest I haven’t read about the origin of life yet for my careless typo and confusion please forgive me and I’m here to learn about evolutionary science ( that’s why we’re all here) and I’m here because as a layman I find the topic of origins deeply intriguing and editing isn’t exactly my strong suit. but I’m honestly interested and excited to learn more about new and exciting ideas and perspectives (that I don’t agree with 100% of the time) even though evolution it’s not my field of expertise.

[Jesse_England]

What are some resources on RNA world?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

I suggest starting with the Wikipedia article. Reference #17, from 1986, in that goes into some of the predictions that have since been fulfilled:
https://www.nature.com/articles/319618a0.pdf

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jesse_England

Institute would shift gears or reform towards more emphasis on a positive philosophical and scientific case for Design and less of emphasis on anti evolutionism but still questioning certain parts of Neo Darwinian evolution (if that makes sense) for example debunking junk DNA while still accepting guided common decent.

Why do theists have such a problem with junk DNA?

[T_aquaticus]

@pnelson

“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution – paths that a sensible God would never tread, but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.”

– Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb , 1980

“Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil-fields and species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body parts of certain land crabs on only certain islands in the Caribbean?..Is the Creator again playing practical jokes?”

– T.H. Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” ABT 35 (1973):125-129.

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of individuals.”

– Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859

Are any of those presentations from a scientific conference? No.

The fact remains that evolution is supported by positive evidence, not merely the lack of a competing explanation.

[pnelson (Paul A Nelson)]

@T_aquaticus

Are any of those presentations from a scientific conference?

Try this (exact YouTube time stamp, so you don’t have to watch the whole thing): https://youtu.be/akwttxWG0ks?t=305

“Positive evidence” for evolution in this case, as in Graur’s 2013 presentation in Chicago to the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, rests logically on a claim of organismal imperfection – i.e., what an optimizing intelligent designer would NOT have done. See slide 57 of Graur’s now-famous 2013 talk:

Update version of the SMBE/SESBE Lecture on ENCODE & junk DNA (Graur,...

The SMBE annual meeting qualifies as a scientific conference by anyone’s definition. I could post many more examples, but there’s no need to do so: the case for undirected evolution (the textbook theory) has, since Darwin, rested critically on assumptions about what a designer would have done.

Indeed one can observe the same pattern of reasoning at this discussion board – e.g., why would a designer construct a nested hierarchy appearing to mimic descent with modification from common ancestors? Evolutionary theory has a longstanding what-would-a-wise-creator-have-done addiction. That isn’t surprising, given that the theory’s roots lie in naive English natural theology of the early 19th century. Reading William Paley, Darwin said, was the only thing of value he got from his Cambridge education.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@T_aquaticus

The fact remains that evolution is supported by positive evidence, not merely the lack of a competing explanation.

Which is more to the point. If all evolutionary biologists ever did was to argue that something X doesn’t make sense from a creationist perspective, then @pnelson would have a valid point by referencing these quotations in response our calling out ID-proponents from only ever making anti-evolution arguments.

But scientists really do make positive cases for evolution too by showing how evolution leads to quantifiable predictions that can be compared to the data.

[T_aquaticus]

@pnelson

The SMBE annual meeting qualifies as a scientific conference by anyone’s definition. I could post many more examples, but there’s no need to do so: the case for undirected evolution (the textbook theory) has, since Darwin, rested critically on assumptions about what a designer would have done.

Where is Graur arguing that the human genome had to evolve with the sole reason being that a designer would not have put that much junk DNA in the human genome?

More to the point, evolution doesn’t require genomes with 90% junk. That just happens to be the result of evolution in some lineages. The bladderwort genome is nearly 100% functional, and that fits just fine with the theory of evolution. Bacterial genomes are ~75% functional, and evolution has no problem with it. Some viral genomes are 110% functional since they can have overlapping reading frames on opposite strands (e.g. adenovirus). Evolution has no problem with that, either.

The positive evidence for evolution is the pattern of genetic similarities and differences across species.

@pnelson

Indeed one can observe the same pattern of reasoning at this discussion board – e.g., why would a designer construct a nested hierarchy appearing to mimic descent with modification from common ancestors?

We simply apply parsimony.

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way.
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@pnelson

“Positive evidence” for evolution in this case, as in Graur’s 2013 presentation in Chicago to the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, rests logically on a claim of organismal imperfection – i.e., what an optimizing intelligent designer would NOT have done.

Wait! Are you now cryptically hypothesizing that the intelligent designer is “optimizing”?

Isn’t that a testable hypothesis?

[John_Harshman]

@pnelson

I could post many more examples, but there’s no need to do so: the case for undirected evolution (the textbook theory) has, since Darwin, rested critically on assumptions about what a designer would have done.

I don’t think that’s what you’re seeing there. The examples you give are not a case for undirected evolution per se, but a comparison of two hypotheses, undirected vs. divinely directed evolution. In order to make the latter hypothesis operational it’s necessary to postulate how that entity would operate. If you disagree with that particular model, you are free to come up with your own, but I fear that your model would be too vague to be useful, something like “God does whatever he wants, and it’s not for us to say.”

I don’t see how any of this is relevant.