The Dissent from Darwinism

I’m familiar with that ubiquitous claim but I’ve personally seen no evidence of that. Would you also say that Germ Theory and the Theory of Mitosis have taken on “the status of an article of faith”?

Also, it sounds like you are confusing the naturalism of good science with philosophical naturalism. The former is rooted in the very foundations of natural philosophy, the subfield of philosophy which Christian philosophers developed—and which led to the rapid progress of modern science as we know it. In contrast, the philosophical naturalism which many automatically associate with atheism is something else entirely.

(1) As a religious studies scholar, I strongly disagree with classifying naturalism (or whatever definition) as a religion. In its most concise definition, a religion is a devotion to the transcendent. There is no notion of the transcendent in any popular version of naturalism of which I’m aware.

(2) What is your evidence that this naturalism of which you speak “doesn’t like skepticism or scrutiny”?

I happen to be quite dismissive of flat-earthism. Does that make me an advocate of this “naturalism religion” of which you speak? Does it indicate that I somehow lack skepticism in my science? Does it mean that I’m opposed to the scrutiny of scientific evidence?

2 Likes

Why should scientists take seriously skepticism about an already falsified theory of origins presented as a challenge to current understanding?

It feels a lot like the question: “Sir, will you stop beating your wife?” The question itself implies an ad hominem falsehood (if no wife beating is taking place). We just disagree with the whole premise of the question. It would be like seeing a “Dissent from Newtonian Physics.” It is not that it is pseudoscience, rather it is pseudohistory.

1 Like

I know of other biologists, most notably Larry Moran, who have said this as well. That they would sign it but won’t because of how it would be spun. I’m not a Darwinist and have spent a good bit of time arguing against the adaptationist paradigm.

3 Likes

What is your best example of such a paper? Let’s take the allegedly #1 most egregious case you can find and see if the claim of bias (and scandal) is justified. (I’m not being dismissive of your claim. I sincerely want to check the evidence and see if the claim holds true. I am skeptical and want to submit your claim to due scrutiny.)

Also, do you understand that not every scientific paper gets published?

I can’t speak for every field, but in my own experience in academia a typical paper is routinely rejected until various issues are addressed. Sometimes those are major issues but usually they are details. Yet, even after all of those issues are addressed, a paper can be rejected for all sorts of reasons, such as the paper not “making the cut” in a competition with many other papers submitted to the same journals or failing to “fit” a particular theme planned for a given issue of that journal periodical. Not everybody’s paper will get published. That’s not how science works—nor is it how good scholarship in the humanities works. (I was a science professor before I became a humanities professor.)

2 Likes

As a long time metaphysical naturalist, until my recent conversion, I can say with confidence this is false. The naturalist community I was a part of was very skeptical of certain arguments and scrutinized every one that was presented. I wonder what naturalists you are referring to @Ronald_Cram.

2 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: Quoting Primer and Suggestions

I don’t agree. Buddhism is a religion and it has no transcendent God, personal or impersonal.

According to the second definition for religion in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

“2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”

Evolution certainly fits that definition for many people.

I’m referring to the well-documented opposition to those who are skeptical of evolution. I would rather get back to discussing the science.

Except we are talking about Darwinism here, not evolution. What does a falsified theory of change have to do with evolution?

I am very interested and curious also.

@Ronald_Cram, I am quite fascinated by the issues you’ve raised and I hope to resume my participation on this fun thread after a few hours attending to other matters. (Perhaps you’ve been around for a while and my erratic participation here incorrectly leads me to assume that you are new to this forum—but a hearty “Welcome!” to you, whatever the case may be.)

1 Like

There have been a couple of examples of papers published and then retracted by the journal because of the uproar they caused by criticizing evolution. This is very unusual in science. Usually if a paper gets by the review process that others don’t agree with, they simply publish a response. But that doesn’t happen with regards to evolution because the religious defenders of evolution demand the paper be withdrawn. I believe there were many more examples in the movie by Ben Stein, but it has been a long time since I saw the movie.

We are talking about Dawrinism, not evolution. Are we not?

yeah it was weird. I knew it was Ronald who said it it just wouldn’t let me direct it towards him. So I gave up and sent it to you. Haha

Read my concise definition more carefully: I did NOT claim that all religions recognize a “transcendent God”. I said that a religion requires “the transcendent”. That transcendence doesn’t have to be a deity, “personal or impersonal” as you say. It can be any sort of transcendent “whatever”.

Buddhism is a religion because its various versions focus on various transcendent goals and foci, whether that transcendence be described as enlightenment, overcoming samsara, Nirvana, or attainment of Buddhahood.

(1) Do you think that the average popular-level layperson dictionary for a language is the best authority on such a term? [My question is sincere. I’m not trying to sound dismissive. I’m just trying to better understand where you are coming from.]

(2) Depending upon the general public’s notions about a word’s meaning is fraught with ambiguities and contradictions—and appalling errors. For example, does the fact that many English-speakers think that a dolphin is a kind of fish provide sufficient reason to doubt an ichthyologist definitions of those words? Does the fact that the average English-speaker thinks that a koala bear is a kind of bear overrule the taxonomist who tells you that the word koala does not refer to a species of bear?

I am also wondering if you think that religious studies scholars and evolutionary biology scholars are commonly mistaken in their terminology. (Again, I’m not being dismissive. I just want to understand more of your opinion of the academy in general and the years of training we had to go through to do our jobs as researchers and as teachers at universities.)

[As a linguist, lexicography is very important to me, so that is why I have responded so carefully on this issue.]

1 Like

Ok good. That gives me some specifics because years ago I did a case by case scrutiny of the “bias examples” discussed by Ben Stein in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I concluded that not one of them was valid. Indeed, I was absolutely shocked at the misrepresentations. (In some of the cases, I would have to say my use of the word “misrepresentation” was a euphemism.) By the way, did you notice that in the Expelled film Ben Stein made no effort to check with parties on the other side of the story? The film was a good example of what the Bible warns about: “A story sounds true until another comes forward to cross-examine and testify.” (That’s my personal paraphrase of Proverbs 18:17.)

I’m not going to post my point-by-point refutation of Stein’s example cases in this thread because far more qualified people have done a much better job of that and they are available to the general public online. (Readers can easily find them with a Google search, just as I found them.)

As a born-again Christ-follower who had received many enthusiastic recommendations (and even their advertised endorsements) for the Expelled movie from friends and evangelical colleagues, I was very frustrated and disappointed by that film once I had opportunity to see it and investigate it. My scrutiny and skepticism over its claims turned out to be well founded.

1 Like

To put my response more concisely before I leave for the afternoon to do some urgent errands: Is it possible that you accepted the claims of Ben Stein et al without sufficient scrutiny and skepticism?

By the way, what are Ben Stein’s academic credentials and relevant expertise in relation to these topics? Do you believe that his background as an economist and actor makes him better qualified to weigh these topics than the thousands of evangelical scientists with earned degrees in fields relevant to evolutionary biology?

Even the ID folks do not enthusiastically promote it, for those very reasons.

1 Like

That is not true. They did and do promote it. Case in point the exchange that provoked this thread. @Ronald_Cram does not identify as an ID proponent, but he sure is is “ditto”-ing their claims.

This is going back a long way in the conversation, but I concur with this. I would also “dissent from Darwinism” as worded, but doing so would likely be misconstrued by those that care, one way or the other. Also, as was mentioned earlier, I don’t think the document is well-known in most circles. I doubt anyone else in my department has ever heard of it.

2 Likes

I sometimes wonder if it was intentionally set up this way…