The Abuse of Science by Scientists?

@Ashwin_s

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.

1 Like

I paid a lot of attention, but was not appreciated. This body of work is really in large error.

1 Like

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.

Fair enough. I will take you on your word.

1 Like

I was responding to @cwhenderson. I think he was referring to random mutations… I know adaption under natural selection is not exactly random (.The environmental change is random… though adaptation to the environment is not).

Perhaps you could try and publish a critique… They claim to be open to it.

I have published critiques.

Environment change is not entirely random either…nothing is entirely random except perhaps quantum noise.

Can you share a link?.

Sure… Non-directional… not goal oriented. The environment does not change with any purpose jn mind.

How do you know that? Does not God send the rain?

1 Like

Isn’t that a theological position?
Do scientists view evolution as goal oriented. Am I representing the scientific theory unfairly?

What it exposes is that science can see something as no-goal directed, while from a theological point of view it can be goal directed.

1 Like

True… however if goal directedness becomes a necessity to explain phenomenon, the theory fails.(or at least needs to be modified).
I keep this distinction in mind. If someone holds to the position that evolution needs God/an intelligent agency for it to work… Then I see it as intelligent design. That’s how I differentiate between the two.

This is an idiosyncratic and ahistorical definition. By this definition, I am an ID proponent and so is BioLogos even as we are well know for opposing ID.

It is historical. One of the basic claims of evolution is that natural causes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
ID denies that and posits that an intelligent agency is required.
Do you believe it’s impossible to explain biological diversity through natural causes alone?

No, it isn’t. That is well accepted by IDists. And ID has been around since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks with their telic thoughts. Mike Gene says this in “The Design Matrix” and it is also well known amongst IDists.

That said BioLogos seems to say that we cannot detect God’s work and that it all looks like nature did it even though they “know” God was responsible. I thought the main gripe with ID was that we say we can detect telic processes and you say that is false.

I am very interested in this. Please give me specific examples of this occurring.

1 Like

I know you like Dawkins, but he does blur the boundary between the claims of evolutionary science and his anti-theism agenda. He has even gone on the records saying this is an intentional strategy.

1 Like

No. There is no place where that claim is made. Science does not make metaphysical claims of sufficiency.

I believe it is impossible to explain anything by natural causes alone, and that science does not even try to do such a thing.

2 Likes