I don’t say “must have.” But it’s a possible explanation that is in the running for “best explanation.” Only a materialist would rule it out as a possible explanation. But materialism is a metaphysical commitment, and as such cannot be either validated by science, or assumed by science.
In the case of the machine on Mars example, it’s relatively easy to rule out non-design explanations. In the case of the origin of life, one must proceed with more caution, but certainly so far non-design explanations have been almost a complete bust.
And by the way, I’m not a creationist, but an evolutionist. I just happen to be an evolutionist who also affirms design. I realize that in your black-and-white world of “evolution vs. creationism” it will be hard for you to fit me into a category. But if it helps any, I can refer you to a detailed document on the difference between intelligent design and creationism. Just ask, and I’ll provide the reference for you.
A scientist needs a testable hypothesis. If ID isn’t scientific, that’s fine. There are a plethora of widely held philosophies and theologies that are not scientific. The question is why ID supporters insist on forcing ID into science when it isn’t scientific.
How many design explanations have been shown to work? Exactly how was the first life produced? What steps were there? How were those steps achieved?
Then why are you claiming that microevolution can not accumulate into macroevolution?
The entymology of the name of a discipline does not determine what is practiced in that discipline. I’ve been practicing psychiatry for over 25 years. We don’t use the concept of the “soul.”
Your having a hard enough time dealing with basic biology and logic. Don’t go exposing your utter ignorance on other subjects.
There have been so many posts since this started that I don’t remember what analogy you are referring to. Refresh my memory, and I’ll answer your question.
You consider yourself an expert on evolutionary theory, and you can’t even be bothered to read the cutting-edge work in the field? The works of Stuart Newman, Gunter Wagner, etc. are now widely read and respected by many. I shouldn’t be telling you about these guys; you should already know about them. And you should have read lots of their stuff. But your discussions here show no awareness of anything in evolutionary theory other than genetics stuff. Get the volume of essays that came out of Altenberg, and read them. Get Wagner’s book on homology, genes, and innovation, and read it. (I’ve read parts of it, but I don’t trust myself to give a proper account based on a partial read when it’s not my field.) Learn about Newman’s emphasis on constraints on biological form proceeding from physics, and learn why an increasing number of full-time evolutionary biologists doubt that the typical population genetics accounts of evolution are adequate. If you can’t be bothered to keep up with the literature, if you have to ask an Arts major what’s going on in the field, it raises questions about your own competence to draw conclusions about evolutionary mechanism.
As for the rest of your note, here is what it amounts to: “I, T. aquaticus, a biologist who won’t reveal his name, have shown beyond a doubt that macroevolutionary change can be wholly explained by the mechanisms seen in microevolution. You can read my arguments on non-peer-reviewed blogsites. In the meantime, many full-time evolutionary theorists, who regularly publish in journals on evolutionary mechanism, regularly attend conferences on evolutionary mechanism, etc., are not convinced of conclusions like mine. But I, the pseudonymous biologist, am right, and they, the professional evolutionary theorists who put their names and necks on the line in professional venues, are wrong. And the proof that I am right and they are wrong is that a philosopher and theologian without technical expertise in genetics can’t prove my arguments inadequate on Peaceful Science.”
This is just plain silly. If you really think you have solved the problem that Dobzhansky left unsolved, why weren’t you at the Royal Society conference, reading your results there to all the top evolutionary theorists in the world, and proving decisively that all this stuff about weaknesses in the modern synthesis was hooey? Why aren’t you publishing your claims in the scientific journals devoted to evolutionary mechanism? Why aren’t you duking it out with the big boys, instead of picking on 98-pound weaklings like me? What joy would you get if you could crush me in argument, if you knew those same arguments wouldn’t prevail among many of the scientists who know the field of evolutionary mechanism better than you do? Your motivations are opaque to me. In fact, the motivation of all biologists who spend 20, 30, or more hours per week debating on blog sites about evolution, instead of researching and publishing on evolution in peer-reviewed venues, is opaque to me.
I would even be willing to discuss the article with you instead of just telling you to read it without any discussion. Are you willing to enter into this discussion?
Other scientists were there reading their results and proving decisively that the EES people were pushing hooey. Here is one exchange:
Would you be willing to discuss this topic, or will you refuse?
“Interesting” from the standpoint of my understanding of what Dembski have actually done with Specified Complexity. It’s not just that scientist do not accept SC - mathematicians reject his interpretation of the math.
You think I don’t know that? My choice of words was deliberate. I was playing the gadfly.
But just to be clear, I am not using “soul” in the narrow sense that some employ, to mean a “ghost” that resides in a bodily shell, and flits away at death. I’m using it more broadly, to indicate the fullness of the human psyche, without implying any naked dualism of soul and matter. It indicates all that is human about human beings, and that includes things about human beings not reducible to material explanations. But we can drop the word “soul”, and just use “psyche”. If you purport to be able to restore a tortured psyche to health, you must know what a healthy psyche looks like. And inevitably that entails not just positive but normative judgments. All the biochemistry and neurology and pharmacology courses in the world can’t prepare one to make those normative judgments. Traditionally, such judgments have been grounded in one’s world view. That’s why I asked how your world view affected your practice. Yet you say it affects it not at all. But how can you make normative judgments about healthy and unhealthy without them being colored by your world view?
I’m not presuming to tell you what drugs to prescribe for people with mental conditions, or how to interpret a brain scan, or anything of the sort. I’m more concerned with how you deal with people whose problems are not merely some chemical imbalance in the brain, but are wrapped up in questions of sexuality, fear, low self-esteem, jealousy, etc. In the past, clergymen often dealt with such problems, and they never pretended that a purely scientific approach was adequate to deal with them. They never denied that their particular view of the world influenced how they counselled people. They never pretended to a detached objectivity. They knew they were making value judgments when they tried to restore people to moral, spiritual, and emotional health. That strikes me as more honest than any pretense of Olympian detachment.
“Top evolutionary theorists in the world.” LOL! According to whom? The creationist blogs that were slavering over this wankfest of crack pots and amateurs? Can you cite even the tiniest effect this supposedly revolutionary meeting has had on the practice of science? No, I didn’t think so.
The only person at that meeting to whom the appellation “top evolutionary theorist in the world” could be reasonable applied would be Douglas Futuyma. And his contribution was simply to point out to the horde of wannabes at that “conference” that most of the ideas they were proposing had already been incorporated into standard evolutionary theory for decades already, and they were way late for the revolution that had already occurred. Strangely enough, the religious websites that are the only places where this failure of a conference gets any mention seem to ignore Futuyma’s contribution. Gee, why would that be?
I don’t need advice on how to do my job from scientifically illiterate religious zealots who couldn’t logic their way out of a wet paper bag, thank you. You do whatever job it is you do, and let me do mine.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I think the main reason it “sucks” is because of the belligerent atheists. I wish they would all just leave, except for Patrick who is funny and human, and T. aquaticus who is rational and polite, and at least capable of imagining that there could be alternatives to his own reductionist, materialist approach to science and nature.
I know that Joshua has the best of motives in trying to make atheists feel welcome here. But for the most part, we aren’t hearing the views of the “kinder and gentler” atheists here. We are getting the belligerence of the atheists who don’t like religion generally, and don’t like Christianity in particular. And they aren’t here to help build a better synthesis of science and faith; they are here to bash ID, bash creationism, and push for a materialist view of everything. Most of them couldn’t care less about Genealogical Adam, etc., and if they let it pass unopposed, it’s not because they care in the slightest about preserving a historical Adam and Eve, but because it might keep the Christians from meddling with their science. Their only interest in it is tactical. It was the same on BioLogos, Basically, they used BioLogos as a platform to bash ID and creationism. And now it’s happening again, with the same results.
I’m pretty fed up with the strong antireligious currents here, and so you may get your wish. I may be gone soon enough. Have a nice day.
You’re damned right we are. As are the reasonable and informed theists in this group here. I’m glad you are capable of at least understanding some things.
You’re showing complete ignorance. There were plenty of top evolutionists at the Royal Society conference. The whole idea was to bring together top people to discuss whether the modern synthesis needed abolition, major repair, or only minor tinkering. Maybe you should stick to your reductionist, materialist psychiatry practice and leave evolutionary theory to people who know something about it.
I’m happy to let you do yours, but based on what I’ve seen here, there is no way on God’s green earth I’d ever submit to be your patient.
Support that assertion. Give the publication records, on the subject of evolutionary biology of any of the participants at that conference who were pushing for the “extending” current evolutionary theory, and compare them to that of Futuyma.
Or, alternatively, just admit that you are blowing someone else’s hot air and have no clue what you are talking about.
Things are a little different her, don’t you admit?
ONE: the Special Creation of Adam/Eve … and God’s miraculous side are quite definitely defended here.
TWO: Joshua calls himself “id, no caps” … which nobody at BioLogos would ever do.
THREE: Intelligent Design, in principle is not the issue… it’s the question of whether Science can ever be enlisted to see, discover, find or notice “design” in any part of the natural world.
FOUR: the side to creationism that is challenged and besmirched is the part where Creationists regularly throw out whole sections of Science … because it doesn’t fit either a Young Earth and/or a global flood which repopulated the Earth with a limited (or maybe an UN-limited?) catalog of surviving animals.
I don’t think we can explain the origin of DNA and its complex functional sequences by science at this point. ID has a place at the table as mind is the best explanation for this currently.
