T.J_Runyons Evolution Rubrick

There is a reason for the nitpicking. Scientists often claim evolution is as settled as the theory of gravity in public forums. You yourself mentioned 2 as what they are referring to when they make this claim.
Is is too much to expect from a well established theory that it be well defined and make testable claims? Put yourself in the shoes of. Non-specialist who is told “evolution is as true as gravity” and think about it.
I am just pointing out that it might be useful for an honest communication to stop talking about evolution as one theory, but rather many competing theories regarding how “modified descendants” emerge and new species are formed.

Instead , what we get is authoritarian assertions that evolution is true followed by just so stories/artistic renderings of what is supposed to have happened.

This is a bizarre statement and accusation of dishonesty. We are honest. The only theory that makes sense of the data without invoking God’s action is common descent.

Common ancestry makes testable claims. And I agree evolutionary theory is composed of multiple theories. I’m separating UCA and the theory itself here.

2 Likes

Larry Moran explains that well here:

I am not accusing you of dishonesty. But guys like this guy are-
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/

Because of his sustained and oft confusing campaign. Claims like this one below become the norm.
"The theory of evolution encompasses the well established scientific view that organic life on our planet has changed over long periods of time and continues to change by a process known as natural selection."

The smaller claims of common descent are very often used to establish “natural selection” as the overarching guiding force of evolution. I don’t know if this happens accidentally… however I have seen this bait and switch very often in public discussions of evolution.

Well that is a real problem. They should talk more about The Neutral Theory of Evolution and other non-Darwinian processes.

1 Like

If that is done, which I know it is because ive witnessed it before, then yes, they are in the wrong. Evidence for common ancestry isn’t evidence for mechanism.

Which is why I always insist on what people mean by common descent before any discussion.
It may seem like nitpicking… But it is nitpicking that is necessary.
@T.j_Runyon - sorry if I am being unnecessarily long winded.

No apology necessary. Im sorry for coming off rude. Just been a long day @Ashwin_s

1 Like

@swamidass,

@Ashwin_s has no motivation to do so. The worst day of his life was finding out that BioLogos was spending more time endorsing God-led speciation.

Bringing up Bruno in a place like this - after a century of the debunking of the “perscuted scientist” myth, is not going to fly.

I did a brief piece on him when Neil de Grasse recycled the fairy-tale on Cosmos II back in 2014.

2 Likes

Are you sure Bio-Logos is endorsing “God led speciation”? What exactly is God led speciation?

@Ashwin_s ,

I believe it is just ONE of the ideas they endorse in the BioLogis big tent.

God-led Speciation is God picking the mutations of subsequent generations… exposed to God-configured favors of Natural Selection so that eventually a new species is created.

1 Like

Richard Dawkin’s not terribly good at being an ambassador of science. He promotes atheism, not science. Does not everyone know this?

1 Like

Should they? Scientists are not as quick in denouncing his errors as for YEC guys… just look at the public abuse ID guys face…

If you knew the history here, you would understand why.

Well history does go back to people like Huxley…

ID does not go back to Huxely. It goes back to about 1991.

1 Like

I was talking about the link to atheism and evolution. TH Huxley…
I know ID is a recent phenomenon.

We were discussing why the ID guys receive so much abuse. It has nothing to do with Huxley and Dawkins, but everything to do with recent history.

1 Like