I’m willing to discuss Denton’s views, but not until you and Burke first withdraw the false statement that both of you have made, i.e., that Denton does not accept evolution or does not believe in evolution. Will you now retract your earlier statements, and concede that Denton affirms the reality of macroevolution, from one-celled creatures up to man? And that therefore at least some ID proponents accept evolution?
Does Denton accept the idea of descent with modification through natural processes?
You really aren’t very good at this, are you?
I’ve lost count of your footshots.
No it doesn’t. Now you’re just being totally absurd. Your non sequiturs get worse and worse.
It refers to a process or a theory.
He doesn’t accept the modern evolutionary synthesis. Neither does the DI, and neither do you. That’s why you’re all in the same “tent”. I note you still haven’t addressed either Denton’s books or [this Discovery Institute article](Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, a Fresh and Powerful Challenge to Darwinism, Is Out! | Evolution News.
1 Like
OK, so Eddie is not answering. We can conclude from that what we will.
1 Like
He now knows that assumption in his first book was a sophomoric mistake, but hasn’t really admitted it forthrightly AFAIK.
1 Like
I stand corrected on what you actually said.
However, my point remains: your usage of the term “evolution” in this context is materially misleading. By common usage of the term in English, Denton “accepts evolution.” What is your motive for trying to cast doubt on whether Denton believes that evolution – in the most common use of the term – has occurred?
It can refer to either, but since the point in dispute between myself and Faizal Ali was whether or not Denton accepted the reality of a process, then it becomes important to distinguish between the thing called evolution and the theory of how evolution works. There is nothing to be gained by blurring that distinction.
It remains true that in all casual discussion (i.e., between people who are not origins nerds like the people here), when the question is asked, “Does X believe in evolution?” the question is understood to mean “Does X believe that man and all other species descended by modification from one or a few primitive living forms.” And in that normal usage, understandable to scientist and layman alike, Denton, Behe, and many other ID proponents “believe in evolution” or “accept evolution.” The attempt to pretend that there is no important difference between Denton and Meyer on this subject, the attempt to convince the public that all IDers are “against evolution,” is based on a falsehood, and, since the falsehood has been demonstrated, is dishonest.
This debate appears to be, at least for you, about the wounded amour propre of certain evolutionary biologists, who insist that it’s not enough to accept evolution, but that someone must accept their particular accounts of how evolution happened, or be rightfully professionally shunned. But I couldn’t care less about the professional egos of scientists or any other academics.
We get it. You can’t, or don’t want to, answer the question that is the subject of this thread. Fine. So no need to rehash old arguments here. There are other threads ongoing for that.
2 Likes
That suggests to me that you are using the term in a not very useful way. Charles Darwin never accepted the modern synthesis. Does that mean he didn’t accept evolution? Are saltationists suddenly (!) no longer evolutionists? It just doesn’t work.
Sometimes it seems that way to me too, but in this case I’d say that you’re the one.
1 Like
Sure, I’ll answer the question. Michael Denton understands something of modern evolutionary theory. I wouldn’t say he understands everything about it – I don’t think he follows all the literature in detail – but he understands something about it. But you could only count up the things he does understand, and doesn’t understand, by actually reading his most recent books.
That assumes that you do, which for someone fixated on Darwin is unlikely.
I would note that you don’t follow the relevant literature in detail (see the 58 papers from the Dover trial that you won’t read), so your opinion about what someone else understands is irrelevant.
Maybe I could say, but I have zero confidence that you would given your total lack of interest in knowing whether Behe understands the evolution of the immune system.
1 Like
That does not address the specific and crucial questions being asked in this thread: Does Michael Denton understand and accept the non-functionalist aspects of current evolutionary theory, as outlined in my OP, which explain he homologies that he is trying to explain thru his model? If so, on what basis does he attempt to argue that his structuralist model provides a better explanation?
If not, he has not demonstrated an adequate understanding of the aspects of evolutionary theory that pertain to the specific argument he is making, and on that basis his claims can be dismissed out of hand.
2 Likes
If you’re sincerely interested in this question, why aren’t you reading his 2016 book to find out?
If he really has not addressed this problem, then there is no reason to waste time reading his book, is there? His argument fails right from the start.
In any event, I don’t think it is unreasonable on a forum like this to ask questions regarding a book one has not read of people who have read it. I answer such questions all the time.
Since you have read it, I can only wonder about your curious reluctance to just answer a simple and important question.
2 Likes
I don’t have every argument in his book memorized, and I don’t want to take the time to look up exactly what he said about particular points, but I can tell you that he has a lengthy discussion of structuralist versus functionalist accounts of evolution, for which he draws partly on the detailed historical work of Gould, and that he discusses the work of some of the evo-devo theorists throughout the book. He also has a long discussion of typology, and in addition detailed discussion of flowering plants, limbs, wings, and feathers, and also some discussion of fossils. In his discussions of particular structures he draws upon the work of recent evolutionary biologists who are specialists regarding those structures.
It’s a “big picture” book, designed to give an overview, discussing many specific technical examples but aimed at sketching the outline of a coherent structuralist view of evolution. He does not deny the role of adaptation and of “Darwinian” types of change, but places such adaptive change into a larger structuralist context. He provides enough history of evolutionary theory for the reader to understand the intellectual framework of the book.
It’s a book for people who want to do some fundamental thinking about the nature of evolutionary change and are open to reconceptualizing. It’s written in intelligent laymen’s language, but it’s not therefore intellectually simpleminded. It requires thought to follow the arguments and reflections.
I think the decision to keep a modified version of the older title was unfortunate, because the word “crisis” gives the impression that the book is largely negative regarding evolutionary theory. In fact, the book is much more positive than the original book. The original book argued that Darwinism was a flop, but offered nothing to replace it. This books argues that already the old, simplistic Darwinian account has already been partly displaced in favor of a newer, subtler, more multifaceted theory, and that this has been all for the good. He does criticize the older Darwinian account throughout the book, comparing it unfavorably with what we have learned in more recent years, but the language of “crisis” doesn’t capture the overall feel of the book. He gives the impression not that evolutionary theory is in a crisis, but that it has already turned the corner and is going in the right direction. He wants to push it still further in what he considers the right direction.
His book inspired me to read large chunks of Gould’s huge and very informative book, and that result alone made reading Denton’s book worthwhile, but Denton himself has some interesting additions to Gould’s line of thought.
I’d say no. Because a lot of his examples of what he calls “non-adaptive order” are easily explained by drift.
4 Likes
IOW, he does not discuss the current, mainstream consensus scientific explanation for homology in biology as part of evolutionary theory, and in fact does not even demonstrate awareness of this explanation. His claims are therefore entirely without merit, based as they are on his ignorance or denial of the relevant aspects of the scientific theory he is trying to disprove.
I thank you. This has been an informative and enlightening discussion, particularly for anyone continuing to labour under the misapprehension that the work of Michael Denton presents any challenge whatsoever to the standard theory of evolution.
2 Likes
Yes. It is now clear to me that his fundamental error is seeing this as a conflict between “functionalism” and “structuralism”, while ignoring the explanation that is actually favoured by current thinkers, which could be labelled “historical contingency” or something like that.
It is very odd that Denton claims to be so immersed for so long in the evolutionary literature, particular the work of Stephen Jay Gould, and yet remains ignorant of this basic concept, whereas a rank amateur like myself understands it quite adequately (largely as the result of not wasting time reading the writings of religious propagandists like Denton and, instead, reading people who actually understand modern evolutionary theory) . I have to wonder tabout what is going on in the minds of ID Creationists.
2 Likes
Not to mention the doers, who have identified many of the genetic changes involved in these transitions.
They are ignoring Feynman’s first principle:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
At some level, there has to be some awareness that they are fooling themselves, or they wouldn’t be so cagey and closed. Eddie’s refusal to read the immunology papers offered as evidence at Dover is a good example of this.
This is why (@Jordan) one can’t simply present evidence and expect understanding.
3 Likes
If only you could maintain this perspective consistently!
For me. I have learned that teachers associated with the University of Toronto think that it’s academically acceptable to make judgments on books they haven’t read, based on secondhand summaries.
I am basing my judgement on his academic publications, or what he intends to be seen as such. As any academic should know, scholarly publications are the primary basis on which a scientific claim should be judged, as opposed to books written for the general public. The citation upon which my asssessment was made is provided in the OP.
I am, however, doing my due diligence in asking if there is anywhere else in his writings that might address the obvious shortcomings I identified in his BIO-Complexity article. Given that none are forthcoming, I feel justified in concluding that the article he wrote himself is a fair representation of his thoughts and arguments, and sufficient basis to dismiss these as unsupported.
That help?
2 Likes