Is Evolution Speculation?

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

Feel free to dig into it and tell me what you found. I have no time or expertise in mining funding documents.

I know how to do this. It is pretty easy. You find out things like how much money in salaries are being wasted doing nothing of value for humanity.

I think some perspective is required here. What exactly are people responding to when they claim evolution is unfalsifiable? I see this perception rooted in the following major categories. (I didn’t do a survey or anything. I am just talking out of experience).

  1. The claim that life emerged from non life through purely natural processes without an help from any God. (I know this is not officially a part of the theory of evolution. However it’s a vital part of the public discussion of evolution).

  2. That the appearance of design in life is a product of natural selection.

  3. Just so stories like the eye evolving 60 times because of “positive selection” (this is unfalsifiable and untestable).

  4. Common descent : Even though there is evidence for it. Ultimately it is an inference that directly results from an assumption of natural causes + the fact that life arises from life.

  5. Agression against religious beliefs using evolution as a tool in public forums.

Nobody is going to get anywhere in this discussion without clearing the air. That’s why I like the approach of peaceful science here.
If you try by distancing yourself from the above claims (with point 4, you accept the tautology involved and then present evidence for why you believe it’s true inspite of the tautology) You will make more headway.

1 Like

@Ashwin_s, @T_aquaticus, @T.j_Runyon

Cc: @swamidass

To all Readers:

I know this will sound impossible to believe, but PeacefulScience.Org was not intended to be a NEW venue for proving/disproving ID … OR proving/disproving Evolution.

This venue is for accepting that God used both methods of Creation… with natural evidence supporting the Evolutionary phase… and the Bible justifying the Creationist phase!

First, you must make s-p-a-c-e in science for the work to be received properly. And make philosophical arguments. And then you promote a large number of ideas, many of which are mutually incompatible. And only after all this is done and ‘Darwinism’ is defeated do you critically analyze ideas to find which are the most likely. But never, ever reject an idea publicly. Better yet, never be seen to reject any idea at all… Except anything related to evolution.

Essentially, it’s exactly like how new ‘paradigms’ make their way into the rest of science, amIright? :yum:

1 Like

How have they been brainwashed? They deal with the real data every day.

Who is censoring them? Peer review is done by fellow scientists, so this still requires a world wide conspiracy of scientists, including christian scientists. That just doesn’t sound valid to me.

Why would people who have a graduate degree in a subject and years of experience doing hands on research with a subject have more knowledge than people who have none of those things? I think that question answers itself.

Perhaps you should ask Dr. Kurt Wise about that. He studied under Stephen Jay Gould himself, and was open about his hostility towards evolution. He had no problems getting a degree.

I’m sorry, but you are just making that up.

1 Like

Your parenthetical is an important point. What scientists (even christian ones) view as important is often different from what the public views as important. To scientists, it is obvious that the origin of life is a separate question from the origin of biodiversity, but that isn’t obvious to many in the public. I think many of us understand that if life evolved from a simple life form created by God 3.5 billion years ago that the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

I think it goes back to the fundamental apprehension that some christians have towards science, that you have to give up all your religious beliefs in order to be a scientist. I think this is why it is important that scientists like @swamidass share their journeys as christian scientists to hopefully show how science and religious beliefs can co-exist. In my experience, even atheist scientists are just fine with religious beliefs of their peers. What we all care about is the science, and personal beliefs are left alone unless they start to affect the quality of the science.

I would argue that the appearance of design is a product of human psychology, but that is certainly an interesting discussion to have.

Thankfully, this is a problem that the scientific community has brought to light and has been confronting for quite some time.

I have always found this to be a strange criticism coming from the realm of scientific creationism. The whole point of YEC/OEC is that the scientific evidence supports their claims. Therefore, they are using the same assumption of natural causes, supposedly.

That does need to stop. There is fault on both sides of the debate, and this is certainly one of them.