You aren’t talking about Sal Cordova, are you?
No, Sal’s review was later.
This doesn’t jive with the DI webpage:
You can accept the modern theory of evolution as tentatively true and still agree with the statement. That doesn’t carry over to the description from the Discovery Institute.
@T_aquaticus if you take Darwinism as you yourself define it, as the old out-dated version of evolution 1.0, then yes, you could sign the statement and still accept evolutionary theory as a whole as tentatively true. But you could do exactly the same thing with DI’s statement because it uses the same term “Darwinism”. Not that they intended that distinction, or that the signers did either.
But @Agauger, why would any one sign a “Dissent From Newtonian Physics”? Signing a statement like the Dissent from Darwinism would indicate I didn’t know the content of modern evolutionary theory.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Darwinism Falsified in Science Long Ago?
The question is why the Discovery Institute didn’t make it a straightforward statement, something like “The undersigned reject evolution as a complete explanation for biodiversity and instead believe that an Intelligent Designer was involved.”. Why be cute with it?
@Agauger As I am getting to know you, I am getting more empathetic to your thinking. Given your Catholic background, why isn’t this okay with you?
This gives you complete freedom to be a practicing evolutionary scientist and a good Catholic. What wrong with that?
Why are you making things personal?
Of course it’s personal. Many of us are becoming friends.
Because I like Ann as a person, a fellow human being, a person with a similar age and background with me. Sorry if my human empathy and compassion is showing.
It’s just keeping with their whole ruse “ID doesn’t say the Designer is God wink wink”. It hard to imagine just who they think they’re fooling.
They’re making fools of all you guys who think you know their position better than they do.
There a lot of perspectives on the question of the designer that unite a number of “odd bedfellows” under the ID rubric.
Part of the DI’s “big tent” strategy. Be as vague as possible to appeal to every flavor of Creationist from YECs to OECs to TEs to the Last Thursday nutters. Then you’ve got the “Big bang pool shot” IDers, the genetic "front-loading"IDers, the “Designer came by in the Cambrian” IDers, the “Designer tinkers whenever necessary” IDers. Oh, and lets not forget the Raelians.
The only real fools are those who think the DI is pushing a legitimate scientific idea or that there is a legitimate major controversy over evolutionary theory in science.
I’m late to this party, but I like @Agauger’s speculation about what happens AFTER something is found that clearly did not evolve. I’m add my own speculations to this.
Given: We discover the Wodget, and it could not have evolved.
I conclude the Wodget either has no biological function, or has some non-biological function. This follows because expect biological function as the result of evolution, not the opposite. This does not rule out wodgets with biological function, but makes them much easier to identify.
If 1 is not correct and the Wodget has biological function, then we have discovered non-evolvable biological function. I don’t know what this means, nor do I have any idea what criteria are required for some function to be non-evolvable. I don’t think anyone else knows either.
Being non-evolvable does not imply Design. For instance, something might be “found” that fulfills the role. The example I have in mind is Mercury (Hg), which IIRC is had biological function as a catalyst is very small quantities. There is no DNA coding for Mercury, it is found in nature, it has biological function, and it is not designed. A crutch or artificial limb might be the opposite example, possibly designed (if more complex than a tree limb), and it restores lost biological function.
3.5) My mercury example fails 1 (it has biological function) but passes 2 (found in nature and not evolvable).
- Found wodgets don’t need a designer.
I don’t have any example of wodgets lacking biological function, which might be because I am interpreting biological function rather loosely. If we allow wodgets to be non-physical, then perhaps music could be a non-biological function, but then I don’t know how we show music did not evolve.
Pardon my wild ramblings, just trying to get these odd thoughts out of my system.
Should I go ahead with your view and agree that you exist as cosmic fluke, that you were not made in the image of God, and that, should I ever meet you, I can simply dismiss you, somehow? Can I get guarantees from you that you won’t see my special needs daughter as somehow inferior and not worth the effort it takes to nurture and care for her? Or, are you the Pete Singer type?
I have never understood why being a cosmic fluke would automatically mean that we have no value as human beings. Strange that.
I didn’t say no value. Pete Singer, however, has said that humans like my daughter are of less value than a pig. Lodge your objection with him, please.
You were claiming that @Timothy_Horton holds those views. Why do you think he holds those views? More importantly, why would you link human value to how we came about? I am curious about the logic behind that conclusion.
I asked him if he held the same views as Singer, who justifies them from an evolutionary perspective. That’s a question, not an identification. Don’t get why you didn’t see that.