Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

Skipped to part 7 and this is the first thing I read:


:unsure:

I can only imagine what is said in parts 3-6 to get to this point. Probably a lot of similarities with this thread.

I didn't really expect most to read it, especially you. It disagrees with your views and provides evidence against evolution. I am guessing that you would not consider the evidence to be genuine and true. So by all means dismiss it all you like. It just reaffirms what I said to another poster. If someone puts up a link that disagrees with evolution then it is automatically dismissed as false.
 
E a d. I went through it. What the f more do you want? You threw me a list comprised of quotes from a bunch of dead guys that are in no way experts in fields dealing with biology (except one molecular biologist). Majority are taken out of context even, and the very first discredits the author because it is in no relation the the subject.

Ok
 
When links like the above get thrown around as some sort of legitimate argument, it really is hard to give any kind of credibility to your position. I don't want that to sound mean, but this is just silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
The retort:

https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/irreducible-incoherence

...and quite frankly, this is just about the best summary of the discussion and what I have been screaming at the top of my lungs:



Highly suggest the article, written by an actual philosopher to rebut Behe's "response to philosophical objections".

In direct response to the rhetoric you linked:

Like their other bluffs, it might sound like the critics explained the origin of irreducible complexity -- but that's only true if such indirect pathways are plausible. In fact, Behe never "switches" arguments: somehow Boudry, Blancke and Braekman miss the conspicuous fact that Behe addresses this very objection on the very next page of Darwin's Black Box after he defines irreducible complexity. As Behe wrote: [Note rjd, this is quoted from DBB, Behe's original publication on the subject]

"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 40 (Free Press, 1996).))"

Michael Behe's Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable - Evolution News & Views

An 'actual' philosopher that accuses bait and switch when none has occurred... It appears that appealing to an 'actual' authority without investigating the 'actual' facts still doesn't get you far.

I find it interesting that you have obviously not deemed it necessary to study the theory and familiarize yourself with it, but would instead just peruse the supposed rebuffs, written by the very establishment that the theory threatens, and thus consider yourself suitably insulated.

Edit: I wanted to make this explicit. Did you get that rjd? Does your philosopher make it a habit to argue from untruth to minimize an opponent? He claims that Behe...

...would require ruling out any conceivable evolutionary history, and would thus amount to showing that no part or precursor of the system in question is able to perform any other function, in any other situation and at any time.

While Behe wrote in his original publication:

one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows

You should be more careful about the authorities you appeal to, while refusing to familiarize yourself with, you know... The actual facts.

/Edit
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I didn't really expect most to read it, especially you. It disagrees with your views and provides evidence against evolution. I am guessing that you would not consider the evidence to be genuine and true. So by all means dismiss it all you like. It just reaffirms what I said to another poster. If someone puts up a link that disagrees with evolution then it is automatically dismissed as false.

Really, what do you want? I read the first, second, and seventh part. I honestly feel the rest would be a waste of time.

Did you read the seventh part? He goes into the lineage of Jesus. WTF does that have to do with disproving evolution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Really, what do you want? I read the first, second, and seventh part. I honestly feel the rest would be a waste of time.

Did you read the seventh part? He goes into the lineage of Jesus. WTF does that have to do with disproving evolution?

Just need to reaffirm to the followers that Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
When links like the above get thrown around as some sort of legitimate argument, it really is hard to give any kind of credibility to your position. I don't want that to sound mean, but this is just silly.

Oh I know and I will repeat my position. Any link that disagrees with evolution is dismissed as garbage or as you put it silly. I just thought the link was interesting and gave a different view which is obviously not welcomed.

So just to be clear, only pro evolution links are accepted? Not meaning to be condescending, but serious.
 
Really, what do you want? I read the first, second, and seventh part. I honestly feel the rest would be a waste of time.

Did you read the seventh part? He goes into the lineage of Jesus. WTF does that have to do with disproving evolution?

You actually read more than I thought you would. Ok you feel its a waste of time, that is fine. I just thought the link was interesting.
 
Oh I know and I will repeat my position. Any link that disagrees with evolution is dismissed as garbage or as you put it silly. I just thought the link was interesting and gave a different view which is obviously not welcomed.

So just to be clear, only pro evolution links are accepted? Not meaning to be condescending, but serious.

How about one not quoting the Bible as a reference? Too much to ask? Or from Discovery Institute, which has a very blatant agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
In direct response to the rhetoric you linked:



An 'actual' philosopher that accuses bait and switch when none has occurred... It appears that appealing to an 'actual' authority without investigating the 'actual' facts still doesn't get you far.

I find it interesting that you have obviously not deemed it necessary to study the theory and familiarize yourself with it, but would instead just peruse the supposed rebuffs, written by the very establishment that the theory threatens, and thus consider yourself suitably insulated.

Wonderful, a philosophical retort written by a lawyer with publications defending ID. That's a good one OC.

The philosopher I quoted did an experiment to show how vacuous all this philosophical jargon is with the ID crowd and religious groups. He submitted an abstract that said absolutely nothing but gave it a clever title, put a bunch of big words in it, and attacked Darwin a couple of times. He submitted it to two theology conference which both accepted it immediately.

Here is the abstract:

The Paradoxes of Darwinian Disorder. Towards an Ontological Reaffirmation of Order and Transcendence.
Robert A. Maundy, College of the Holy Cross, Reno, Nevada

In the Darwinian perspective, order is not immanent in reality, but it is a self-affirming aspect of reality in so far as it is experienced by situated subjects. However, it is not so much reality that is self-affirming, but the creative order structuring reality which manifests itself to us. Being-whole, as opposed to being-one, underwrites our fundamental sense of locatedness and particularity in the universe. The valuation of order qua meaningful order, rather than order-in-itself, has been thoroughly objectified in the Darwinian worldview. This process of de-contextualization and reification of meaning has ultimately led to the establishment of ‘dis-order’ rather than ‘this-order’. As a result, Darwinian materialism confronts us with an eradication of meaning from the phenomenological experience of reality. Negative theology however suggests a revaluation of disorder as a necessary precondition of order, as that without which order could not be thought of in an orderly fashion. In that sense, dis-order dissolves into the manifestations of order transcending the materialist realm. Indeed, order becomes only transparent qua order in so far as it is situated against a background of chaos and meaninglessness. This binary opposition between order and dis-order, or between order and that which disrupts order, embodies a central paradox of Darwinian thinking. As Whitehead suggests, reality is not composed of disordered material substances, but as serially-ordered events that are experienced in a subjectively meaningful way. The question is not what structures order, but what structure is imposed on our transcendent conception of order. By narrowly focusing on the disorderly state of present-being, or the “incoherence of a primordial multiplicity”, as John Haught put it, Darwinian materialists lose sense of the ultimate order unfolding in the not-yet-being. Contrary to what Dawkins asserts, if we reframe our sense of locatedness of existence within a the space of radical contingency of spiritual destiny, then absolute order reemerges as an ontological possibility. The discourse of dis-order always already incorporates a creative moment that allows the self to transcend the context in which it finds itself, but also to find solace and responsiveness in an absolute Order which both engenders and withholds meaning. Creation is the condition of possibility of discourse which, in turn, evokes itself as presenting creation itself. Darwinian discourse is therefore just an emanation of the absolute discourse of dis-order, and not the other way around, as crude materialists such as Dawkins suggest.

Even he didn't know wtf he said, but those that run the conferences thought it was compelling stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Edit: I wanted to make this explicit. Did you get that rjd? Does your philosopher make it a habit to argue from untruth to minimize an opponent? He claims that Behe...



While Behe wrote in his original publication:



You should be more careful about the authorities you appeal to, while refusing to familiarize yourself with, you know... The actual facts.

/Edit

I will quote it again, Behe is playing right out of his playbook:


This allows for an interesting bait-and-switch strategy, which one could summarize as follows: “First, present evidence for weak IC in the living world, then pretend that strong IC has been demonstrated and continue to equate IC with ‘unevolvability.’ If challenged on empirical grounds, jump back to the weak version and claim that your critics are misrepresenting your argument. Switch the IC claim to subsystems and assembly of components, keep raising the standards of evidence, and reassert that all this directly follows from the simple objective criterion of IC. Finally, when really pressed against the wall, give up this particular system and quickly find a new one. Repeat the circle ad libitum.”

Did you get that OC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Wonderful, a philosophical retort written by a lawyer with publications defending ID. That's a good one OC.

The philosopher I quoted did an experiment to show how vacuous all this philosophical jargon is with the ID crowd and religious groups. He submitted an abstract that said absolutely nothing but gave it a clever title, put a bunch of big words in it, and attacked Darwin a couple of times. He submitted it to two theology conference which both accepted it immediately.

Here is the abstract:



Even he didn't know wtf he said, but those that run the conferences thought it was compelling stuff.

There are even made up words in there, I'm pretty sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Wonderful, a philosophical retort written by a lawyer with publications defending ID. That's a good one OC.

The philosopher I quoted did an experiment to show how vacuous all this philosophical jargon is with the ID crowd and religious groups. He submitted an abstract that said absolutely nothing but gave it a clever title, put a bunch of big words in it, and attacked Darwin a couple of times. He submitted it to two theology conference which both accepted it immediately.

Here is the abstract:



Even he didn't know wtf he said, but those that run the conferences thought it was compelling stuff.

Awesome. After listing the facts of the originally published work in question, which absolutely, positively disputed your referenced article, your only response was an ad hominem attack against the person that pointed the facts out.

Then, you attack ID by pointing out that theology conferences took in a bogus science article, while highlighting the fact that your reference author gets a kick out of lying to people. Ouch. I guess you really showed me...

(You're nothing, if not consistent.)
 
I will quote it again, Behe is playing right out of his playbook:




Did you get that OC?

Yah. Putting the definition in his original work is really baiting and switching.

Edit: I have a single, simple question for you. Did you read Darwin's Black Box? That's all I want to know.
 
Awesome. After listing the facts of the originally published work in question, which absolutely, positively disputed your referenced article, your only response was an ad hominem attack against the person that pointed the facts out.

Then, you attack ID by pointing out that theology conferences took in a bogus science article, while highlighting the fact that your reference author gets a kick out of lying to people. Ouch. I guess you really showed me...

(You're nothing, if not consistent.)

Keep telling yourself this whole ID movement isn't just arguing from moving targets and throwing around philosophical claims like candy to try and make a point that isn't there.

Did you even read Boundry's full retort? Or are you just taking what a lawyer said off of a ID website as truth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Keep telling yourself this whole ID movement isn't just arguing from moving targets and throwing around philosophical claims like candy to try and make a point that isn't there.

Did you even read Boundry's full retort? Or are you just taking what a lawyer said off of a ID website as truth?

I read it. I still have it up in a separate tab if you need me to return to it for any reason. Did you read DBB? I think that is the bigger question.
 
Oh, and... Rdj, keep telling yourself this whole evolution movement isn't just arguing from moving targets and throwing around philosophical claims like candy to try and make a point that isn't there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Yah. Putting the definition in his original work is really baiting and switching.

Edit: I have a single, simple question for you. Did you read Darwin's Black Box? That's all I want to know.

It really is baiting and switching. Go back and read what he is saying.

No, I haven't read it. I have, however, read a lot of pro-ID articles and Behe's online stuff. I have also read Darwin and completed a year of university Biology and a year of University Chemistry, including organic chemistry. I completed a undergraduate and graduate degree in Engineering, and I am familiar with the groundings of physics and theoretical physics.

I know enough about the subject matter to make an informed decision on what I think is and isn't science. However, I think getting in a pissing match over who has study what is pointless, but I think I saw where you were going with this.

EDIT: And in the interest of full disclosure, I have no formal education in Philosophy outside of what I have studied on my own. I am certainly no expert in any of the fields stated above, and don't claim to be. But I know enough to understand at least the fundamentals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The thing about these replies, and I've read them from both sides, is that there is really very little burden of proof on the critic. Instead of rehashing what Crush and rjd are speaking to, I'm going to move on. It's devolved (no pun intended) into little more than emotional outbursts. There is plenty of explanation directly from Behe and Meyer to be found. What I've seen in response is mudslinging and name calling, with a failure to understand the basics of the argument. I pointed that out to RJD, and he seemed unphased, and chose to google criticisms of the theory without understanding what is being argued from irreducible complexity arguments. Fine.
 
I see Roust has been reading this.

RJD,
This is a serious question. Are you saying that sound logic is importand or isn't important?

The rules of logic are not a trick up my sleave. They are available to anyone. Sadly, our education system has all but discontinued the teaching of logic in our schools. Therefore, we now see evidenced right here on this thread that postmodernism deems sound logic trivial, arbitrary and meaingless. You will use where it suits you and mock it where it undermines the foundations of your worldview.

You sir, and others here are being hypocritical. I have read many (on your side) argue logic, and then when failures or consequences of said logic are pointed out, it's like a kid throwing a tantrum.

So, why point out fallacy? Because thinking is important. We cannot engage in any fruitful endeavor, including science, without a foundation in right and rational thinking. To enter into the science process REQUIRES us to follow the laws of logic, and if we expect our results to be sound, then our methods of thinking used to obtain these results should be rock solid.

If this seems unreasonable to you, then do not expect me to engage you with any sincerity. FWIW, I am not familiar with the link that someone used to accuse me of getting my talking points. Of course it should be noted that I find it interesting that you and others are criticizing a source that helps to educate people to recognize fallacious reasoining? Why would that be bad?

You can google logical fallacies and you will find that most of the information is secular. I began studying logical implications many years ago. One reason is because of how often it came up in both scientific and philosophical discussions. Anyway, that's my two cents.
 
Advertisement





Back
Top