@Faizal_Ali I’m done replying here. If you’re interested in continuing the discussion on the meaning of evolution and creationism, you can go here.
It’s actually worse than that. The only way to deal with the fact that the designer is completely ad hoc is to come up with concrete ideas about the designer which can be confirmed (and to confirm them). They are actually refusing to even try to correct a major weakness in their argument. Eddie’s point rests on the assumption that the argument is good enough as it is - but that is nowhere near true.
Indeed. As a well-known evolutionary theorist writes:
“We would not object so strenuously to the adaptationist programme if its invocation, in
any particular case, could lead in principle to its rejection for want of evidence. We
might still view it as restrictive and object to its status as an argument of first choice. But
if it could be dismissed after failing some explicit test, then alternatives would get their
chance. Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such
definable rejection for two reasons. First, the rejection of one adaptive story usually
leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of
explanation might be required. Since the range of adaptive stories is as wide as our
minds are fertile, new stones can always be postulated. And if a story is not immediately
available, one can always plead temporary ignorance and trust that it will be
forthcoming, as did Costa & Bisol (1978), cited above. Secondly, the criteria for
acceptance of a story are so loose that many pass without proper confirmation. Often,
evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider
their work done when they concoct a plausible story. But plausible stories can always
be told.”
2 Likes
Apart from providing moral support and validation for a falsehoods told by a Young Earth Creationist, that is.
The conflation of adaptationism with evolution proper is, of course, yet another dishonest tactic employed by creationists. As is quoting Stephen Jay Gould out of context. But you’re not one of those, oh no, heaven forbid.
2 Likes
They’re sure it happened in the conservatory, but they have no interest in identifying whether Colonel Mustard or Professor Plum did it or whether the weapon was the wrench or the lead pipe. Curious.
2 Likes
So we agree that merely telling stories is not science. Here are Gould and Lewontin criticizing those who do so.
Where is the corresponding objection from the IDcreationist side about their colleagues?
1 Like
I don’t think I agree. Many hypotheses are nothing more than stories about what someone thinks happens or has happened. But if you then try to figure out what else we would observe that would show this story to be false, then that story becomes part of the practice of science.
ID Creationists never do that part.
1 Like
I am still stunned, this morning, by that mind-roastingly idiotic talk by Denton. I had no idea. When the idea of “anthropocentric coincidences” was mentioned, I thought this would mean things like fine-tuning arguments about the universe. Instead, it turned out to mean things like “did you notice that living things on the surface of the earth, when they use the sun’s energy, use the parts of it that actually reach the surface, rather than the parts that don’t? What a coincidence! Did you notice that combustion is important, but that it doesn’t happen every single time an oxygen atom is next to another atom? What a coincidence!”
I am horrified that anyone could process that dreck and regard it as “evidence” of anything other than Denton’s complete cognitive collapse.
2 Likes
I’ll admit it. I watched the whole thing.
The first minute or so was enough to see that it was nonsense. But it was like watching a slow motion train wreck. I just could not turn my eyes away.
1 Like
For those of us without the fortitude to sit through it, can you cite a spot where Denton shows himself to be a creationist in Eddie’s sense? Previously I had thought Denton was a deist of some kind, with everything arising from the conditions established at the Big Bang. But is he now a YEC?
IIRC, there is no point where Denton says he believes a literal interpretation of Genesis. So nothing there indicates he is a creationist by Eddie’s definition.
OK, how about by a reasonable definition of YEC under the “creation science” framework?
I don’t think anyone here has suggested he is YEC. But there was one remark he made that indicated he does not want to upset YEC’s by suggesting they might be wrong about the age of the earth. I’ll see if I can find it, if you are interested.
1 Like
This, a billion times over.
In thinking about @Eddie’s latest, I think we should acknowledge what he has done. For, in giving us an excellent example of how debate and disagreement drives the the scientific discussion when it comes to evolution (and, I would add, every other field), we get a contrast with the ID community. I am not aware of any dissent or criticism within the ID community when it comes to the work of the vanguard - it is a closed, insular community in which, as far as can be discerned, dissent is not tolerated. Nowhere has anyone in the community asked tough questions (regarding many topics, some of which have been listed in this long thread). Heck, look at the Denton video above - why aren’t people in the audience holding Denton’s feet to the fire? How could anyone sit back and accept such drivel unquestioningly, even approvingly? It’s because, IMO, they aren’t allowed to question one of the “leading minds”.
So, I ask others in this discussion to thank @Eddie for making a point that I believe we can agree on.
3 Likes
“I think the scientific evidence today suggests very strongly that a divine agent ordered the way the world is, ordered the structure of the world for our existence.” - Michael Denton
“Even God creating the first sort of chloroplasts had to have these conditions right.” - Michael Denton
Michael Denton believes the universe and life originated as a specific act of divine creation. He is a creationist.
3 Likes
I guess a creationist could also be a deist rather than a theist. I’d never thought about it.
1 Like
Doesn’t that definition mean that every Christian must be a creationist? Is that then a useful definition?
1 Like
Hi Art
What’s more interesting is that no one here who is anti ID has made any substantive critique of Denton’s claims. His talk is simple straight forward and evidence based. He does not claim to have proof but only evidence about the characteristics of nature that support purposeful design.
That’s why my definition is the best one. 
@colewd, you have a curious idea of what constitutes evidence. “It looks that way to Denton”, or “it is so amazing to Denton”, are not evidences. And this is the entirety of Denton’s treatises. There are no empirical examination, hypothesis testing, controls, serious consideration of alternate hypotheses, or any of the things we do in science. Just incredulity.
4 Likes