“I didn’t say the answer was easy… It is very challenging.
… The presumption of simplistic ‘answers’ should be avoided”
Bateson, William. 1915. “Heredity” _Annual Report of
the Smithsonian Institution, 1915_, 359-394. On 375:
…when we hear the spontaneous formation
of formaldehyde mentioned as a possible first
step in the origin of life we think of Harry Lauder in the
character of a Glasgow schoolboy pulling out his
treasures from his pocket– “That’s a wassher– for
makkin’ motor cars.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
analogy… a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course,
then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence.
“Intelligent Design” survives – on YouTube. In the actual fields of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc, among folks with actual expertise, no one takes it seriously at all. It is based, not on evidence, but on attempts to point out the gaps in our knowledge and scientific accounts of reality. The reasoning is thus – Science can’t explain it, therefore God did it. “Intelligent Design” is a paean to ignorance.
Addendum: There is in no small part another interesting strain of unreason at work also. If we can’t know everything then we can’t know anything. This forms a subtext to many claims made by anti-evolutionists. They are terrified of blank spaces on our maps. They crave certainty. To them saying “I don’t know” is a sign of weakness.
“‘Intelligent Design’ survives – on YouTube.
In the actual fields of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc, among folks with actual expertise, no one takes it seriously at all.
It is based, not on evidence, but on…”
_Beyond Matter: The moving experiences of a scientist with the spiritual world and his afterlife research_ (2023), 385pp., on 182-183
…I was ready to invest time and effort in new ways of seeing and thinking and I found not waffle but solid arguments.
Understanding the scientifically-sophisticated arguments of Behe, Meyer and Axe is tedious and time-consuming, but at the same time worthwhile, and if you want to criticize them, even if you are reluctant, you must have read their books.
With most materialists, however, I have the impression that they have not taken the trouble.
I have read Dawkins myself, otherwise, I would never allow myself to criticize him.
In my opinion it is only honest criticism if one presents concrete arguments for Intelligent Design (for example, the implications of the flagellular motor of bacteria) and then refutes them in argument and with solid facts.
This does not happen in most cases.
Those who do not know the arguments _for_ Intelligent Design cannot formulate any serious counter-arguments.
To protect their own worldview, they take the easiest way out of this dilemma and accuse Intelligent Design of being a theory for religious fanatics with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
With this pseudo-argument, they protect themselves from having to get into an embarrassing scientific discussion using real evidence.
_A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics_ (2020)
Stephen C. Meyer, _Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe: Discoveries in Physics and Cosmology_ (2021)
Douglas Axe, _Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed_ (2017)
In your view, who has done the most-devastating takedown of Behe’s and of Meyer’s arguments?
“can start with Wikipedia”
Anybody can say anything on Wiki.
“‘Intelligent Design’… In the actual fields of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc, among folks with actual expertise, no one takes it seriously at all”
Does anyone in philosophy take ID “seriously”?
Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese, _There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind_ (2008), 222pp., on 88-89
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Moving on now from the parable, it’s time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that support them.
I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence.
I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God.
I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century?
The short answer is…
My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument.
Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration.
This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature.
When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his _Republic_ scripted his Socrates to insist: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”
“’Intelligent Design’… is based, not on evidence, but on attempts to point out the gaps in our knowledge and scientific accounts of reality.
The reasoning is thus – _Science can’t explain it, therefore God did it_“
In which (if any) ID book do you see that “reasoning”?
“Attacking the weakest representative of the opposing viewpoint is the mark of a cowardly, disingenuous, and unserious thinker.
Serious thinkers pick the best representative of the opposing view and address their actual position.”
“your pseudoscience sources”
2 examples?
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter “Epilogue and Summary,” on 344
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process that did not have him in mind.
He was not planned.
He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely materialistic factors.
“‘Intelligent Design’… In the actual fields of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc, among folks with actual expertise, no one takes it seriously at all”
Not even Bret Weinstein?
=========================
Intelligent design individuals are performing a valuable service in pointing out seeming-flaws of Darwinian theory:
Is intelligent design a competitor to Darwinian evolution?
A longer version of that clip is in
11:00-44:00
The 219th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“read the Wikipedia articles on your last two sources”
“your pseudoscience sources”
“I doubt anyone considers that ‘pseudoscience’ label persuasive”
“you’re certainly mistaken about that”
Does anyone here care to admit that he or she considers that “pseudoscience” label persuasive?
We don’t like pseudo-science here.
The people using it to try to substantiate their position are, in fact, anti-science so why even go through the bother? It’s just a big charade.
Having said that, I do find the question of why people believe in pseudo-science to be of interest. The following gives some clues:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I don’t know why I really care at this point but I do find it annoying that folks spread goofiness and blather when the actual truth is so much more interesting. Though admittedly accepting the way things really are does occasionally require us to abandon our dearly held delusions.
Sooo… for David and Steefen and anyone else who might have some interest in the way things really are. A bibliography.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
These books are intended for a non-specialist audience. I can recommend any or all of them unhesitatingly.
NOTE: I use Amazon simply as a reference and don’t get a kickback. A does have good descriptions of the books and frequently has sample pages. However, I can almost always find books cheaper elsewhere. (A’s ludicrous flat shipping fees offend me as well!)
Go to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** which surveys all the major book vendors. Don’t forget your local library!
If you have to rely on YouTUbe let me recommend the wonderful Erika, currently a PhD candidate in Biological Anthropolgy, who curates the channel ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and delights in debunking claims about Creationism and Inetelligent Design. She also keeps up to date on current issues in the field.
Friends, on Judgement Day when you stand before the Almighty and find out that the sole, and I mean the sole, criteria for entering Glory Land is whether or not you understood the Theory of Evolution (there will be a test), don’t say you didn’t know!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert