Eddie to English Translation: “I’m getting my arrogant butt handed to me here due to my scientific ignorance so I need an excuse. I’ll blame everything on those evil atheists even though the topic of religion has barely been broached on this thread. No one has attacked Christianity or any religion even a little but it’s my favorite go-to Creationist whine! I’ll use that as a reason for my repeated logic and scientific blunders.”
Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out. 
How did this turn into a discussion on the competence of Futuyma? I made no personal or professional attack on Futuyma. In fact, I’m predisposed to like Futuyma, because he reads lots of books on evolutionary theory. Most of the people here appear to have read nothing but articles on it.
Further, since people here are saying that the new wave of evolutionary biologists, whose concerns have been raised at the Royal Society meeting, at Altenberg, and in other places (see the Third Way group), are making a big fuss about a bunch of stuff that is already known to evolutionary theory, here is a statement BY FUTUYMA about one of the Altenberg group, Gunter P. Wagner:
“Wagner’s contributions to the conceptual growth of developmental evolutionary biology are unrivalled. Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation shows the sweep of his creative and rigorous thinking. This is one of the most exciting books in evolutionary biology I have read in a long time.” —Douglas J. Futuyma, coeditor of The Princeton Guide to Evolution
Note the words “unrivalled,” “creative,” “rigorous.” Are these the words of Discovery? Of Answers in Genesis? No, they are the words of Futuyma!
Which of the guys posting here as “experts” on evolution have had their writings on evolution called “unrivalled” or “creative” or “rigorous” by Futuyma? Yet Wagner’s book arises out of the same set of concerns about evolutionary theory that drove the Altenberg meeting.
In any case, why is one man’s opinion of the value of current dissent in evolutionary theory being taken as 100% right and fair, and beyond criticism? Isn’t it nothing more than an argument from authority (which is a logical fallacy) to say: “Futuyma is a top man in evolutionary biology, and he thinks all this criticism is a waste of time”?
Oh, yes, that’s right; but there are a lot of atheist materialists here and elsewhere that find a universe without a God “emotionally or aesthetically more appealing” than a universe with a God, and that personal preference certainly creeps into their supposedly scientific judgments regarding the origin of life, and other things (as I’ve shown ad infinitum, and don’t intend to try to show again). Letting one’s preferences taint one’s science is not something found only in Third Way writers, or Ken Ham, etc. It’s found on all sides of origins debates.
I find it interesting that not a single person uttering these complaints here (T. aquaticus, Mercer, Tim, Faisal Ali, etc.) attended the Royal Society meeting, and I also find it interesting that all the materialist and atheists here, without hearing the papers or the discussions, have decided to take one interpretation of the meeting – the one they were inclined to hold even before the meeting took place – and ignore others. On the other hand, Discovery sent at least three people to that meeting, including Paul Nelson. Why not ask Paul, who comments here, if the Royal Society meeting was such a pointless, bloody waste of time as everyone here is implying? Does Paul say that the meeting never should have been held, because all the complaints uttered about the modern synthesis there were already dealt with by the field long before the conference was held? Does Paul think that the meeting was driven purely by people with “emotional and aesthetic” biases that have no place in science, and that there were no significant questions about evolutionary mechanism that needed discussing? Why is everyone here mouthing off about the meeting, when none of them were there, when we have one of our conversation partners here who was there?
I propose that people who have further complaints about how stupid and pointless the Royal Society meeting was open a new topic, with the question: “Was the Royal Society Meeting Redundant, Since Its Questions Had Already Been Addressed by the Field?”
This thread, in case everyone has forgotten, is on Bayesian inference, not the Royal Society meeting, the validity of Third Way criticisms, etc.
I did not claim that, as a statement that I would defend. Rather, I reported the existence of professional evolutionary biologists who are not certain that macroevolution is explained entirely by the kind of mechanisms that operate in microevolution. In other words, I was merely indicating that not all professional biologists share your confidence that macroevolution is just microevolution writ large.
If you aren’t aware of the existence of such biologists, then it must be that the only literature on evolution you read is from people who reduce evolutionary theory to population genetics theory. In that case, I would recommend that you broaden your reading. Alternately, if you are aware of the existence of such biologists, but disagree with them, then take your disagreement to them, in the peer-reviewed literature on evolution. Don’t declare you’re right merely because a theologian/philosopher can’t refute your arguments in the field of genetics. Take on the big boys, people your own size. Go 15 rounds with them, not with me. And keep us posted on how well you do in getting your arguments published in peer-reviewed journals of evolutionary theory, as opposed to blog sites.
I’ve said before that all sides in this debate, including the ID folks and their critics, make way too much out of a mere word. Ownership of the term “science” is fought over because it is a word of prestige in our society, and because it can potentially win one money, power, and social influence.
Historians and sociologists of science will know that there is a direct relationship between the increasing narrowness of the definition of “science” and the increasing professionalization of science, the tying in of science to lucrative grants (often funded by the military-industrial or medical complexes), and the increasing tie-in between science and secular humanism as a world view. The definition of science was much looser when money and careers and the structure of an industrial civilization weren’t connected to the term, and when secular humanism was non-existent as a cultural force. Design inferences weren’t absolutely banned, and nobody thought that the question of origins just automatically belonged to science rather than to theology. It’s no accident that professionals with obvious vested interests are loudest about making sure ID isn’t regarded as science. And too often ID people make the mistake of trying to prove that their theory is “scientific,” when (in my opinion), the only question that matters is whether or not there is real design in the universe, and whether there are empirical and rational arguments that tend to support that conclusion.
In an earlier era, ID folks wouldn’t have to fight for possession of the word “science,” because no one who opposed their arguments would be saying they weren’t “scientific.” They might say there arguments weren’t valid; they might say there is plenty of evidence of non-design in the universe, etc. But the fight wouldn’t be over the word “science.” The modern debate continues to be fruitless because it’s mostly quarreling over a word, rather than over the substantial questions.
They all can be found online.
One counter example isn’t really gonna cut it here. Doesn’t really touch on the point being made here by others
Mad at myself for even responding to you. Bad T.J.! Bad! Have a good night
And how many of the people bellyaching here have read any of them? And are the discussions on the floor also found online? And how about all the private side-discussions that inevitably occur and conferences like that? Are they online, too? As far as I can tell, the atheists and materialists here decided, in advance, that the Royal Society conference was a waste of time, because there was nothing seriously wrong with evolutionary theory that might require anything more than minor adjustment. And now that the conference is over, they are happy to quote Futuyma as if his word from on high settles once and for all the value of the conference. That’s not science; that’s pure prejudice, and reading for confirmation bias. The fact that no one here says to Paul Nelson, “Hey, Paul, you were at that conference; what was the discussion like, what came out of it?” says a great deal about the closed minds of some of the people posting here.
It’s an example that goes to the very heart of the matter, since Wagner is one of the Altenberg group, and his excellent book grew out of his dissatisfaction with contemporary theory. The fact that Futuyma regards Wagner’s book as a major contribution establishes that such dissatisfaction with the status quo can be scientifically fruitful. But no one here is admitting that any criticism of the status quo could be fruitful. They’re all saying that the complaints of the newcomers are worthless, because they have already been dealt with. The falseness of that is shown by the fact that a newcomer has made real contributions. And Wagner isn’t the only one. I suggest you try actually reading the writings of Wagner, Newman, Jablonka, etc. before passing judgment on whether or not their complaints are valid. Then you might have something worthwhile to say on this subject.
Does that include you? If so, please let us know where you studied science, and what degrees, publications, and other accomplishments in science you have to your credit.
Sure does. It doesn’t include scientifically ignorant Creationist blowhards like you though.
Duuuhhh. Who ever asserted that, regarding evolutionary theory? The claim is not that any past or present version of evolutionary theory is wrong because it is orthodox; the claim is that the theory in question is wrong (or seriously incomplete) because it doesn’t do justice to the phenomena.
I’ve seen no evidence of even a high-school level of science knowledge in any post of yours here. How about giving us a list of your science degrees, and the universities where you got them?
Of course you can’t see given where you keep your head lodged. Tell us again about that conclusive evidence for ID you read about but can’t list a single piece. 
Your continued silence only strengthens my suspicion that you have no university degrees in any natural science; and your literary and argumentative style confirms that you certainly don’t have any in the humanities. So if you have a university degree at all, it must be in something where one can get by without any rigorous intellectual procedures. So maybe you have a degree in Sociology, Women’s Studies, Afro-Caribbean Studies, or the like.
Looks like you convinced another one. 
Tell us how you made the same fallacious argument for 9 years and all those hundreds of pro-science people who corrected your blunder were wrong.
Besides, didn’t you say you were leaving? Or was that whiny childish rant against those meanie atheists just to assuage your Hindenburg-sized ego?
Yep. My suspicions were right. Not even in Sociology. It seems you’re a pure autodidact, with emphasis on the auto rather than the didact.
Yep, everyone’s suspicions were right. You’re an idiot savant without the savant part.
If you and Roy call me an idiot, I know I’m on the right side of the issues.
[edited by author to remove unnecessary extra claim]
No, it just means when it comes to the evolutionary sciences you’re an idiot. Sorry if that’s shortchanging you since with your stellar personality you’re probably an idiot in many other areas too. But feel free to keep up the puerile whining about credentials while ducking all scientific discussions. You’re a wonderful spokesman for the DI.
You mean, the way you do? Your posts contain no scientific arguments, just appeals to authority. But then, what can a person without any scientific training himself do except appeal to authority? You can’t be a scientist, so you’ve chosen to be a cheerleader. And that’s OK, as long as you don’t pretend to be anything more. It’s your pretension to have sound scientific judgment that is ridiculous.