A good place to start would be to clearly point at the abuse of Science by Scientists to prop up atheism.This has been rampant over the last few decades and the “scientific establishment” seems to assent to this propaganda.Take for example Richard Dawkins appointment as “Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science” for the last few decades. What do you think the public understood about the so called neutrality of Science from Mr Dawkins work in that period?
I agree with @theman8469 that efforts such as yours and that of biologos is gaining traction only because of the public challenge to the authority of established Science mounted by YEC and ID proponents. I think these movements should be given the credit they are due and they should be supported.
That’s like saying teenage speeders should be given credit for motivating politicians to build more guard rails… and greater use of seatbelts.
No its not like that. The engagement of ID with the public is like news papers exposing corruption of the government. This forces the authority to take action and police itself.
ID is theology not science. Science has to control for variables. There is no way to control the variables represented by God’s operation.
George,
ID isn’t trying to prove God. They are not even a Christian movement. Its an inter religious tent.They are investigating whether intelligence/design can be detected in nature…
They have shown a willingness to engage with scientists by publishing their ideas. Hence any Scientist can send their critiques and discuss the data rationally without mentioning God. We have seen @swamidass do the same with Winston Ewert in this forum itself.
I think its important that paradigms be challenged… and its important for the understanding of Science that narratives given to the public be challenged and debated.
“Ideas about science” is even more likely to be circular than science itself. We all still wait for ANY science to come out of the ID movement.
That is prejudice talking. ID Scientists are publishing papers, making predictions etc (Ewert’s paper being the most recent). They even found a new species of fossil Dragon Fly and named it after Micheal Behe.
“Ideas about science” is even more likely to be circular than science itself-
What did you mean by the above statement?
What SCIENCE did Ewerts paper demonstrate that refutes NATURAL selection?
And how does discovering a dragon fly species refute the NATURAL selection scenaro for producing speciation?
Let’s be clear here: when we ask for the Science of ID… we don’t just mean ANY science… but specifically scientific conclusions that refute Evolution (rather than confirming it!).
Historically, this is exactly what ID has NOT done. This is why the Ewert paper is so exciting - it is finally doing what you erroneously say they have been doing. This is finally pushing forward a testable hypothesis rather than simply raising arguments against actual scientific work. I have been personally critical of ID for a while, but would love to see Ewert’s work tested, critiqued, and refined. I think it would be fantastic if I could refer my students to scientific work suggesting that evolution is not a completely random, unguided process.
George,
People like Kimura have refuted natural selection as the major driving force for macro evolution long back…I suggest you read the below article by PZ Myers. Might prove helpful.
The only reason ID guys have to keep harping against Natural selection is that our Biology textbooks at the high school level are stuck in the 1930s… (thats PZ Myers opinion). I wonder if those guys who write the text book make education a priority vis a vis indoctrination…
I am also exited by Ewert’s paper. Prior to this they have published a few papers on the information science part of evolution. However no one has paid much attention to it. (Atleast i haven’t seen any critiques). And i don’t understand much more than their basic argument put in English which makes sense. Perhaps you can have a look.
I think the “I wont talk to IDiots” attitude of the mainstream scientists is also one of the reasons these papers are ignored.
As to scientific work suggesting Evolution is not completely random… what about Shapiro and his 3rd way? He admits room for teleology.(and gets a lot of Flak for it)
And there are some OOL scientist who propose unknown laws or some variation of thermodynamics which makes complex systems inevitable… of course all that is too vague to be tested…
My biggest issue with Shapiro is not the science, but more his chronology. Knowledge of epigenetic mechanisms is far from new, and he seems to attempt to co-opt these observations into something different (ie, a “new” model) from what has been described in the scientific literature for quite some time.
My time will be far from free for the rest of the day, but I plan to take a look at the link later and get back to you.
Have you even read the article? I am not referring to any original work by the man. I am only pointing to an article written by him about how people exaggerate the role of Natural selection in evolution because they are not upto date.
So which am I to read first? Who has the most definitive claim or conclusion? I can’t read them both simultaneously…
I posted only one link… read that first…
Then we can talk.
As to Ewerts paper, It was posted long back.
Not even close to being true. ID is nothing like exposing corruption of the government. ID organizations have done nothing but make fools of themselves. No scientific theory, no scientific advancement has ever been overturned, changed, modified, elaborated based on anything that anyone in the ID movement has ever done.
BioLogos does appear to arise as a reaction to ID.
Peaceful Science did not. Let us keep that straight.
I paid a lot of attention, but was not appreciated. This body of work is really in large error.
This is a strange statement. Science has never claimed that evolution is completely random.
Read discussion on that here: What is the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? and The "Third Way"/EES and Population Genetics.