Wrong again Eddie. ID is neither a theory nor a hypothesis. Right now it’s nothing but religiously based untestable speculation.
1 Like
Sorry, I think I may have misworded things. What I am saying that you are presuming that, if one includes “design” as part of a claim, it continues to meet the definition of evolution.
Perhaps an analogy would help: Before the invention of the motorcycle, we could have adequately defined a bicycle as a vehicle that has two wheels. However, once the motorcycle is invented, we would have to exclude two wheeled vehicles that also operate by an internal combustion engine from the category of “bicycle”.
What you are doing is the equivalent of citing the pre-motorcycle definition of “bicycle” to argue that you should be allowed to ride your Harley-Davidson on the bicycle path at your local park.
You have not cited a single source, other than those from ID Creationist sources, that have explicitly stated that a model that includes “design” continues to meet the definition of “evolution” by virtue of accepting common descent. Whereas we have both cited numerous incidents in which Michael Behe is described as a creationist because of his belief in “design.”
The logical conclusion is that, in current practice, “design” trumps common descent in the definition of creationism.
Sure. He could believe that human consciousness could possibly be the result of non-physical forces or processes that are do not necessarily require a god.
Nice dodge, but I’m not fooled. Your question was about “ID people.” The authors of the Wedge Document are undeniably “ID people.”
1 Like
Thank you for assigning some of the problem to yourself.
Now you are getting closer. But I’m not saying that any view of origins that involves design meets the definition. First of all, the notion of design would have to be such that “descent with modification” is not impaired. Second, I’m talking about people who accept full macroevolution, not people who limit evolution to microevolution within “kinds.” So, for example (and I’m not endorsing or arguing for this view, just presenting it), a view that the future course of evolution was “front-loaded” into the first genome, such that without any miraculous interventions, things would unfold to produce birds, bats, and man, would count as an evolutionary model. The design would be reflected in the contents that were front-loaded, but the process would be wholly natural.
I understand your analogy with the bicycle and the motorcycle. I agree that through both vehicles have two wheels, they are significantly different, to the point where, for most purposes, they should be treated as different kinds of vehicle. But note that in the example of evolution I gave above, the process is still (1) macroevolutionary, from bacterium to man; (2) without need of any miraculous interventions. It is still, broadly speaking, a process akin to what Darwin envisioned, though in details of mechanism, it is different. Darwin’s process was more oriented to chance, contingent events; this front-loaded scenario is more necessitarian; but both are fully naturalistic in their operation.
I automatically alter this statement to “ID sources”, ignoring the adjective which begs the question.
But belief in design does not automatically make one a creationist. Joshua Swamidass believes that God designed the world, but you don’t call him a creationist. (Or do you?) All creationists believe in design, but not all those who believe in design are creationists. What makes someone a creationist is something else, e.g., belief in a series of discrete creative acts, one for bears, one for elephants, one for man, etc. Michael Denton’s evolutionary scheme is pervaded by design, but there are no acts of discrete creation.
Part of the problem is that ID’s critics perpetually confuse “design” with “miraculous intervention.” If one says that whales were “designed,” and one means by that that whales were created in a moment by a miraculous intervention, then of course a design view would in that case be creationist. But if all that one means by “design” is that the shape, function, genomic structure etc. of whales was planned by a Designer, who then used a wholly natural, non-miraculous set of means to incarnate the whale, e.g., development out of the form of an earlier creature, that would not be creationist.
What I’m trying to get you to see is that while most ID proponents are creationists, there is nothing in the definition of ID – and it’s ID people, not you, who get to define ID, because they, not you, invented the theory – that requires commitment to creationism. ID requires only that things are designed; it stipulates nothing about the delivery system. So it can be attached to both natural and supernatural processes. If you look at the statements I quoted earlier from Dembski and Wells, Ann Gauger, and John West – all obviously authorized to speak for ID, you will see that they make no requirement of supernatural interventions, and utter no veto over the idea of common descent.
I suspect that when you hear “design,” you can’t get miraculous supernatural actions out of your head. And if that’s the problem, then of course ID will be the same as creationism for you. But I’ve understood from the beginning that “design” means “design” – something mental, not physical.
You constantly write as if I’m arguing in bad faith. Why not take me at my word? I’m not “dodging” anything. I want to know if and where you see ideology in Denton’s work.
Of course they are. But they are not the only ID people. Again, I’m not saying that no ID people are guilty of what you are charging them with. I’m saying that not all of them are guilty. If you would concede the existence of a minority that is not driven by American creationist piety, but holds to ID out of genuine theoretical conviction that nature exhibits design, we could get along. It’s your dogmatic, take-no-prisoners attitude that has created the problem.
Contrast your attitude with John Harshman’s. He says, “Yeah, there are a few IDers who accept evolution and aren’t creationists, but they are a very small number, and don’t alter the general case.” I can do business with a man who makes reasonable concessions like that. But you are hard to do business with, because it’s always your way or the doorway. No one else is allowed to be even 2% right. So every discussion becomes a showdown, instead of a give-and-take conversation.
Sure. A materialist is someone who posits that all that exists is material. I am an atheist, and I wouldn’t claim that is the case, because I just don’t know.
It seems to be absurd to even hold views on the fundamental ontology of all that exists and I have a hard time seeing how one could rationally remain anything but undecided on that question.
What is the nature of all that exists? I don’t know. Who can really claim to?
2 Likes
Their weak faith causes them to not practice science at all. They have no faith that their hypotheses will hold up to the scientific method.
Better to pretend to be sciency.
2 Likes
Yes, we’re still arguing about what would be the most useful definition of creationism. I don’t think this is going anywhere.
Of course he does. That’s why I don’t think it’s useful to consider him a creationist. He just hangs out with creationists.
1 Like
If you’re saying that you don’t rule out the possibility of existence of incorporeal substances, then I think that’s a healthy agnosticism.
Well I haven’t seen any yet. You’ve been citing acceptance of common descent, not evolution.
But I haven’t failed to mention that.
I don’t suppress them. I have even quoted them repeatedly on this forum. The problem is, those people are concealing the facts.
The people who produced and promoted what was first the leading book arguing for creationism, and was then rebranded as the leading book arguing for ID.
That is not the issue. As I’ve pointed out, he does not accept the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Irrelevant. The fact that it “used the word” doesn’t change what I wrote.
No, I wrote very specifically precisely because I know there’s a range of meanings. I referred specifically to the modern evolutionary synthesis.
1 Like
That is basically my position yes. I think people who say that “x is all that exists”, or “everything that exists has as it’s nature X” are making claims they can’t support.
3 Likes
No, it isn’t.
I’ve pointed out what I see as the flaws in @Eddie’s position, and yours, too, I guess. In your case, it is just an honest disagreement. In Eddie’s, it’s just part of his self-assigned job as a loyal foot soldier for the ID Creationist cause.
Not much more to be said (Famous last words).
3 Likes
Define, in your own words, out of your own knowledge, “evolution.” No links, no quotations, just how you understand the word. If you really understand this subject as much as you pretend to, you shouldn’t have to look anything up to answer the question, but should be able to rattle off your definition without much effort.
So let me get this straight. Anyone who does not accept “the modern evolutionary synthesis” does not accept evolution?
So if Dawkins disagrees on some significant point with “the modern evolutionary synthesis,” he doesn’t accept evolution? For example, if, in relation to the majority of theorists, he greatly overrates the importance of selection, and greatly underrates the importance of “drift”, he does not accept evolution?
How many boxes of “the modern evolutionary synthesis” does one have to tick before one counts as an orthodox supporter of evolution? All of them? Most of them? Half of them?
Which boxes of “the modern evolutionary synthesis” does Michael Denton fail to tick?
The double standard here is an example of not conversing in good faith. I have gone to great lengths to explain my position, giving careful exposition, giving lengthy replies to your objections, providing passages from the ID leaders, offering a substantial history of the word “creationism,” etc. And for my pains, my disagreement is not regarded as “honest”, whereas John Harshman’s disagreement is “honest.”
I have no objection if you call my views utterly wrong, but calling them “dishonest” (or implying that they are) is hitting below the belt.
You know, a good number of people here, reading your posts, will say that you are not being intellectually honest, but are just being “a good footsoldier for the atheist cause.” And if you think that would be an unjust judgment, because you are trying your hardest to be objective and fair, think about how you have just described (and cavalierly dismissed) my own efforts.
1 Like
The process described by the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Anyone who does not accept the modern evolutionary synthesis, does not accept evolution as I am using the term “evolution”.
No. As usual you are trying to change the subject.
It isn’t a matter of checking boxes.
- He falsely claims evolution is “a theory in crisis”. It is not.
- In “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” he rejects any evidence for gradualism, and claims natural selection can only account for microevolution. This is a rejection of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
- In “Nature’s Destiny” he claims evolution can only have taken place through the direction of a supernatural designer, and through mechanisms he identifies as non-Darwinian. This is a rejection of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
The Disco Institute is very helpful here. They take pains to assure people that Denton still rejects “Darwininan evolution”.
As a result, we occasionally hear rumors promulgated by ID critics claiming that Michael Denton is no longer skeptical of Darwinian evolution, or even that he has abandoned the argument in his influential 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Such rumors are quashed by Denton’s article in Inference , where he observes:
They then quote him writing this.
In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ( Evolution ), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. … The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today. There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations. This was my position in Evolution. It remains my position today.
Read the entire article.
1 Like
I must admit, I didn’t take sufficient note of the fact that the best known book of one of the guys @Eddie has been pimping out as a proponent of evolution is entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
Yup, sound’s like something only a dyed-in-wool supporter of the theory of evolution would write.
2 Likes
That was almost as painful a foot-shot as him eagerly citing a book which argues for Special Creation by a supernatural creator who is outside the universe, and explicitly identifies that supernatural creator as God, and claiming that this is evidence for an ID book presenting the ID theory.
2 Likes
Define, in your own words, out of your own knowledge, “theory.” No links, no quotations, just how you understand the word.
2 Likes
You’re delaying the inevitable. Define “the modern evolutionary synthesis.” What does it claim? Your own words, please, not links, quotations, etc. I want to know what you understand to be the contents of the modern synthesis.
Read the Caveat in the 2016 book, where he explains that it wasn’t all of evolutionary theory that he was rejecting, even back in 1985, but only a particular line of evolutionary theory that was dominant when he wrote the 1985 book. In the newer book, he notes some positive developments that have improved evolutionary theory, including some of the work in “evo-devo.”
No, because this is simply your attempt to change the subject. I note you have failed to address anything in my last post, which is significant.
Yet he still rejects the modern evolutionary synthesis, as I have already demonstrated.