Is Evolution Speculation?

Funny how “Darwinism”, a view rejected by pretty much every biologist in the 60’s, just now became the dominant paradigm in biology…

1 Like

What does this mean for neutral theory?

1 Like

Neutral theory is what made Darwinism fall out of favor

2 Likes

What has brought it to become the dominant paradigm in biology?

1 Like

@Nonlin.org I’m very sad for you. Darwinian evolution was falsified in the 1960s by Haldane and Kimura. That is not current evolutionary science. You might need to find something else to expose.

I got a biology degree before I realized ID arguments were false. No one asks in science what you believe in your heart. There are no allegiance tests in science. I know many scientists that are even YECs and accepted by their colleagues as legitimate scientists.

A rock solid mathematical theory, validated by experiments, simulations, and more. There are just 1000s of papers on it now.

2 Likes

See: The Neutral Theory of Evolution.

1 Like

This was Ann Gaugers claim which went unchallenged. Looks like a weak argument unless the mutations are indeed guided.

3 Likes

Look, maybe evolution was guided by God. We certainly have not ruled that out. However, the question at hand is something different. Can we demonstrate that he guided it? That is a much higher bar. I have not yet seen an ID argument clear that bar.

1 Like

To much credibility is being given to DI and ID that they are doing any science at all. They are not. They are just critiquing the latest scientific results. There is a big difference between doing science and just sitting on the sidelines critiquing it. DI and ID (and TE) are not part of the consensus building that science uses to take in new results and merge them into what is accepted as provisional true. The only reason DI and ID (and TE) are even considered is that there is a theological effort to insert a disguised theology into evolutionary science.

That is largely accurate, but I still want to affirm when they make positive steps in the right direction.

They don’t, and never had and never will.

I felt like Ewert’s recent work was a good step. It’s hard to get excited about an idea if no models or frameworks are being developed. ID hasnt done that. So the fact that Winston did was a positive step

1 Like

I really want to see ID models for universal common ancestry. How does it fit in, etc. but every time I’ve reached out to an ID proponent (including prominent ones) about it they just push me away or start to argue against UCA. That disappoints me. I mean here is an evolutionist wanting to hear your thoughts and get your ideas and you arent willing. I thought that’s what they want?

Because it is not science, it is theology disguised as science. They don’t have labs, nor are a university. They call themselves a think tank. But think tanks rely on funding to survive. And the think tanks positions must align with their funders or they do not survive. Let’s not lose site of the fact that DI is primarily funded by those who have strong ties to the Evangelical Christian Right.

Pretty sure they have a lab.

1 Like

Pretty sure that they don’t. They are no where never the forward edge of evolutionary science research. Never been, never will be. They are just a fake think tank with a loosy name called of all things “Evolution News” They have no news to give about evolutionary science as they get their evolution news from the same place I do -Science Daily.

I’m pretty sure they do. I also know for a fact they are funding research in universities.

None of this matters though. What matters is the quality of the work they do, and the veracity of their findings, and whether or not they act in a trustworthy way. Remember, FFRF does not have labs, nor does NSCE.

I am interested in what research they are funding in universities. Can you point me to where it is going on? It has to be disclosed. They can’t be doing “secret” research on ID.

I have no idea where because it does appear to be secret, for obvious reasons. They certainly do not tell me any details, but I have no reason to doubt that they actually are funding work in universities when they tell me this.

You know that universities have to disclose their funding sources and their donations. And you know that any non-profit 501C organization (like DI is) must report where their money comes in from and where it goes. It can’t be 'secret". [@moderators out of line comment deleted] Remember the tobacco companies funding research to show that smoking wasn’t that bad. That is why it can’t be “secret” anymore. Today when somebody says it is secret, it usually means that it is non-existent.

1 Like