Is Darwinian Evolution going extinct?

[alabasterjar]

Meyer would get more positive attention if he wasn't working from the position how do we prove jesus.
He has valid criticisms of the current state of biological knowledge but his beliefs bias his view of what these outstanding questions in science mean.
It is a god of the gaps argument at its core. Which in and of itself isn't necessarily an issue, calling the unknown god. The issue is trying to connect this god of the gaps with the god of moses where there is no connection.

It's a philosophical argument masquerading as science, as a philosophical argument it's fun to engage with but what helpful bearing it might have on science I fail to see.

If at some point we have a full grasp on how life evolved from molecules to people then the argument will simply be pushed back to 'well god started the big bang/process toward life's
If someone was willing to state us attaining a firm grasp on how life evolved would dissuade them from belief in god then maybe this exercise is worth going through but I suspect any naturalistic explanations we come up with will fall under his umbrella of naturalistic according to Gods plan.

i can't think of a single academic presentation that he has given where he has argued his position from a Judeo-Christian worldview, and there are at least 3 or 4 dozen or more on YouTube and Vimeo.

You state that this is a philosophical argument masquerading as science... That's really funny, since he is using the real scientific method to come to conclusions.

You don't like Dr. Meyer, ok, try this one:
[video=youtube_share;LuEaJDksxls]http://youtu.be/LuEaJDksxls[/video]

 

[NKBJ]

The 6000 year old creation / young Earth and Darwinian evolution / natural selection appear to be two false choices obscuring truth and inhibiting thought.

 

[Jludo]

The 6000 year old creation / young Earth and Darwinian evolution / natural selection appear to be two false choices obscuring truth and inhibiting thought.

I'd be curious to find out what the truth is.

 

[alabasterjar]

Honestly I dont see what the push for intelligent design is about. People of faith either believe god used evolution as we know it as part of his creating us or they believe god made us in an instant 6000 years ago. If they believe the former then every scientific discovery inherently aligns with their views. I dont understand the push for some sort of middle ground in Christian belief, is intelligent design the best creationists think they'll be able to come up with to oppose evolution?

I'd like to see the link between the Christian God and this jump from single cell to multicellular life or the cambrian explosion.
The bible leaves room for god to spend billions of years playing with organisms before he gets around to the point?

In the most basic form, the intelligent design argument doesn't have to originate from "God", only from "mind". I understand that distinction doesn't seem like much, but this is a reasonable scientific approach and has support from Judeo-Christian believers and atheists/agnostics, as well.

It is important to note that some Christians have an old-earth world view; that is, the universe and earth are millions of years old and that the Creation days are actually periods of history as opposed to a literal 6 day period 6000 - 10000 years ago.

 

[alabasterjar]

I'd be curious to find out what the truth is.

An age old question, my friend, and one that has eternal consequences. I would encourage you to take the time to listen John Lennox share his take on Creation. Regardless of your beliefs, I think you will find his talk enjoyable and insightful.
[video=youtube_share;0FmO2XKMe6g]http://youtu.be/0FmO2XKMe6g[/video]

 

[Jludo]

I can only watch so many hours of suggested youtube videos a day, if I could get the cribnotes on what you seem to know that escapes me I'd appreciate it.

 

[Jludo]

You state that this is a philosophical argument masquerading as science... That's really funny, since he is using the real scientific method to come to conclusions.

I didn't think it was that funny, we must have learned a different scientific method coming up as the one I'm familiar with includes testable hypothesis'. As far as I can tell 'life was intelligently designed' gives us nothing of value. Might as well say it was magic and stop all investigating into how we came to be.

 

[alabasterjar]

I didn't think it was that funny, we must have learned a different scientific method coming up as the one I'm familiar with includes testable hypothesis'. As far as I can tell 'life was intelligently designed' gives us nothing of value. Might as well say it was magic and stop all investigating into how we came to be.

The scientific method for investigating something that is repeatable is different than the method for trying to determine how something happened in the past that is not repeatable. You can't go into a lab and recreate the creation (or big bang, whatever you want to start with). The best you can do is to study the things that are left behind and and infer the what's and when's - one of the ways is to infer processes that can be observed in the present to guide the hypotheses of what may have happened in the past. In the present, information is always preceded by and brought forward by mind. I am not away of a single app on my phone that wasn't conceived of and created by a mind. DNA is on a whole other level of complexity from the code that I am using to type this message. Just because I don't understand the code used to make this message doesn't mean I discard the process as magic.

Just out of curiosity, have you read through, cover to cover, Darwin's Origin of the Species? I have, and it is really a terrible read. I know, I know, I'm just saying that because I'm an ID guy... Actually, I'm saying that because the hypotheses that Darwin makes, while reasoned and intellectual at the time, are easily defeated by today's third grade science textbook. That's not to say Darwin was a fool... He was limited by the scientific knowledge at the time. He literally thought that the cell was a structure filled with goo (my term, not his). The fact of the matter is that the cell is an incredibly complex factory that restricts certain substances coming in & out of the cell, creates it's own energy, builds proteins and enzymes, replicates DNA, etc, etc. I'm not even certain that Darwin would sign on to his own theory, knowing what you and I know about biology now.... Let alone what the smart people know, lol. I can say this because in his own book, he lays out the conditions that his theory would be refuted - I don't have the book handy, but one of the big ones is if no transition species (ie dog to cat, monkey to human) are found in the fossil record. He firmly believed that no transition species had been found yet because enough archeology had not taken place. Fast forward to present day, huge discoveries around the globe related to the identification of new species, but NO transition species discoveries.

 

[alabasterjar]

I can only watch so many hours of suggested youtube videos a day, if I could get the cribnotes on what you seem to know that escapes me I'd appreciate it.

Yup, understood. I encourage you to "save it for later" and come back to it. I don't have the intellect to cliff note it....

 

[Jludo]

The scientific method for investigating something that is repeatable is different than the method for trying to determine how something happened in the past that is not repeatable. You can't go into a lab and recreate the creation (or big bang, whatever you want to start with). The best you can do is to study the things that are left behind and and infer the what's and when's - one of the ways is to infer processes that can be observed in the present to guide the hypotheses of what may have happened in the past. In the present, information is always preceded by and brought for by mind. I am not away of a single app on my phone that was conceived of and created by a mind. DNA is on a whole other level of complexity from the code that I am using to type this message. Just because I don't understand the code used to make this message doesn't mean I discard the process as magic.

You can recreate portions though, we can test things that happened during the big bang, we can blast cell dna with xrays and watch it mutate. to say 'its ID' adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, its inserting metaphysics where science is inherently materialistic.
It's fine to point out flaws and gaps of knowledge where they exist, it's more helpful to have an idea of your own and fill in those gaps. ID as it's being pushed now is simply a thinly veiled Christian attempt to get metaphysics in the science classroom.
Also as I've stated before I dont understand this 'teach the controversy' being set as the battle line. Scientists should have no problem saying where they don't know something and Christian's shouldn't feel in any way that science not knowing something is evidence for God.

 

[Jludo]

Just out of curiosity, have you read through, cover to cover, Darwin's Origin of the Species? I have, and it is really a terrible read. I know, I know, I'm just saying that because I'm an ID guy... Actually, I'm saying that because the hypotheses that Darwin makes, while reasoned and intellectual at the time, are easily defeated by today's third grade science textbook. That's not to say Darwin was a fool... He was limited by the scientific knowledge at the time. He literally thought that the cell was a structure filled with goo (my term, not his). The fact of the matter is that the cell is an incredibly complex factory that restricts certain substances coming in & out of the cell, creates it's own energy, builds proteins and enzymes, replicates DNA, etc, etc. I'm not even certain that Darwin would sign on to his own theory, knowing what you and I know about biology now.... Let alone what the smart people know, lol. I can say this because in his own book, he lays out the conditions that his theory would be refuted - I don't have the book handy, but one of the big ones is if no transition species (ie dog to cat, monkey to human) are found in the fossil record. He firmly believed that no transition species had been found yet because enough archeology had not taken place. Fast forward to present day, huge discoveries around the globe related to the identification of new species, but NO transition species discoveries.

I haven't read Darwins origin of species for exactly the reasons you stated, when I read science books I prioritize the newest ones as I'm looking for the most recent state of knowledge.
I dont think anyone's defending Darwins entire original theory as written, we've obviously learned a lot since then.

 

[mtinner]

where does bigfoot fit into all of this?

 

[BugI02]

The Lakers have a sweet contract for him if he can dunk?

 

[mtinner]

coach?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The Lakers have a sweet contract for him if he can dunk?

He could replace Kaepernick as their spokesman. He has big feet, and he's less controversial.

 

[Phase2]

He could replace Kaepernick as their spokesman. He has big feet, and he's less controversial.

Not sure about that. Pretty much everyone agrees that Kaepernick exists.

 

[Route 45]

where does bigfoot fit into all of this?

In a sane world, in the same basket with talking snakes and magic apples.

But then again, we allegedly have fuzzy pictures of Bigfoot.

 

[NKBJ]

I'd be curious to find out what the truth is.

Me too. That's a great reason for study rather than putting up with choosing between two obviously false paradigms.

 

[nonobaddog]

I love that they explain how chance and probability actually work.

If I have a 1 in a million probability and 1 million chances, I won't even come CLOSE to guessing the right answer, if all my guesses are random. Now, if your guesses are rational, or planned, or intellectual, then yes, you probably have enough chances.

That depends on what your definition of "won't even come close" is. With 1 in a million probability and 1 million random chances you have a 63.2 percent chance of one OR MORE winners.

 

[nonobaddog]

I love that they explain how chance and probability actually work.

It would be like picking a combination lock by rolling dice. How many rolls would you need? The answer is far far more than a million. On a 20 digit, 3 place, combination lock you're looking at needing thousands of TRILLIONS of chances.

I'm not sure what you mean by rolling dice to pick numbers from 1 to 20. How does that work?
But if a combination lock has numbers from 1 to 20 and a three number combination, then the lock only has 8000 possible combinations.
A mere 20 thousand random combination tries gives you a 91.8 percent chance of opening it.

Obviously if you use sequential combination tries then 8000 tries gives you a 100 percent chance of opening it.