Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Good Discussion

To this Gil Dodgen post:
I agree, and to elaborate a little, it is my view that the heart of Darwinism is not really random mutation/natural selection, but rather it is the proposition that all major changes to living organisms can and have come about through long series of minor changes. It is this proposition for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence, not in laboratory studies, observations in nature, nor in the fossil record.

Indeed, when you pin Darwinists down, they can’t even come up with detailed hypothetical scenarios for such Darwinian evolutionary paths, not for the bacterial flagellum, nor the feather, nor the avian lung, nor the life cycle of the sheep liver fluke, nor the evolution of whales, etc., etc., etc.


The problem with the Darwinian position is easily diagnosed: it is a clear case of hasty generalization followed by a shifting of the burden coupled with the demand for an unreasonable standard of “disproof”.

Because RM & NS can generate some biological variance, it is assumed that they can generate all biological variance found today and in the fossil record. That is clearly a case of hasty generalization.

Then, they shift the burden. Instead of formally (empirically or through a valid mathematical analysis) demonstrating RM & NS to be at least plausibly capable of producing a variety of biological target features (winged flight, the bacterial flagellum), they assert only the bare possibility that RM & NS could have generated it, then expect critics to prove that it is impossible for RM & NS to generate the feature in question.

These are very easily-recognizable logical fallacies. It is not up to critics to prove it is impossible for RM & NS to generate the flagellum or winged flight; it is up to advocates to formally demonstrate the scientific plausibility of RM & NS to generate those features.

That has not been done, yet it is claimed as a scientific fact.

It is really a mind-boggling case of ideological bias.


One of the obfuscations that Darwinists use is to conflate the entirety of evolutionary theory with the specific capacity of RM & NS to plausibly generate what they are claimed to generate.

When asked for formal predictions, they often point to predictions about what kind of fossils will be found where, and in what strata, or point out predictions of so-called intermediary fossils or genetic connections found in the lab, such as the amount of genetic similarity found between apes and humans; or they point out that all living creatures share some similar DNA.

Those references are non-sequiturs; they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not RM & NS have been shown to be able to produce what they are claimed to have in fact produced. A footprint where it doesn’t belong doesn’t invalidate RM & NS theory; a perfect lineage of transitional fossils of every living creature doesn’t support RM & NS theory one iota. The ability to predict how much DNA is shared between two species – again – doesn’t demonstrate RM & NS to be capable of doing what it is claimed to do.

Darwinist often conflate evidence for common descent and the current evolutionary timeline with evidence for the creative power of RM & NS.


Mr. Dodgen:
The trick is knowing and identifying what simplifying assumptions can be made and which cannot, in order to produce a valid computational result that conforms with physical reality.

And therein lies the essential difference between an Engineer and a Scientist. Most (if not all) pure scientists risk only their reputations and future grant money if they’re mistaken, let alone careless or even fraudulent in their findings. Engineers, OTOH, risk peoples lives and property. When Engineers are careless, bridges collapse, buildings fall, planes crash etc. Engineers often must pass rigorous certification and licensing exams as a prequisite to working in many industries, long before they ever get a chance to prove out a design. We care very much that our engineers be right, but our scientists not so much.

Darwinism is pseudoscience. … is held to a low standard of evidence that would be laughed at and ridiculed by any legitimate scientist in any rigorous field of scientific endeavor.

As would most engineers, and there are more engineers than scientists with a far more realistic grasp of physical complexity and the difference between design (what engineers do) and accident (what engineers avoid).

I have often wondered why ID seemingly constrains itself to discourse within the “scientific” community when the engineering community is just as savvy in theory and more sophisticated in the application of theory to reality, and often has far more credibility with society because engineered things objectvely, predictibly and provably “work” whereas most scientific endeavors merely “study”, the findings of which often meet no standard of objectivity.

Engineers, I would think, are generally a much more receptive audience to inconvenient facts and omissions than are scientists.


you still don’t get it guys, engineers? you’re not scientists, and if you were, you still have to be biologists, but that’s not enough either, you must be evolutionists, or you couldn’t possibly understand the issues.

UNLESS, you DO buy in to evolution, and then you could be a hollywood script writer, OR anything else, and your opinions are as valid as those of Darwin.

1 comment:

Contemplato said...

But folks, you still use the word "evolution" oddly--according to my sensibilities--as though the two teams are the Evolutionists vs. the Theistic Creationists. Further, Darwin himself entertained Lamarkian notions, that is, mechanisms other than RM & NS, so I get squeamish about bandying the term "Darwinism" about as a pejorative term. Where I agreee with you is that I believe that God is active in the whole thing. Where I may disagree (but correct me otherwise) with you is in imagining that, most likely, we would not be able to detect His actions in Creation if they bit us on our scaley tail fins. Where I agree with you again, RM & NS are most certainly not the end of the story--but I, for instance, have been proposing another plausible avenue of investigation into rates of evolutionary change since the seventies: viral transfer. Others have also independently developed the idea of viral transfer as an accelerating mechanism and--to some degree--a possible channel for convergence. And would viral transfer be, if it were to come to hold explanatory weight, the end all of the story? No, that is hardly likely as well. I imagine that there is an indeterminate amount of unknown mechanism involved--but that is precisely what you would expect of God Who is able to cloak himself quite nicely in what appears to us humans, of slight pattern-detecting power, as randomness. (Oh btw, Matteo, sorry for missing your birthday "a while" back...and a beautiful blog site I might also add.)