Dave Armstrong; Sorry to pick over such a silly little thing, but could you try to use the quote tags in your posts? - I’m finding that tracking who is saying what detracts from the message.
Instructions may be found here, or alternatively just click the ‘quote’ button below somebody’s post and you’ll see how they are constructed.
Thanks
And again I ask, what step-by-step explanation are you looking for? Do you want us to provide examples of each and every organism from step A to step B?
And where is it written that science consists solely of the empirical? If this is what you are looking for, then you proceed from a false premise. Especially given that you yourself claimed that empiricism is not the only valid form of knowledge.
You have built up not only a strawman of evolution that you can beat up, but one of scientific methodologies in general, as well. As such, our failure to priovide what you are looking for is rooted in your own erroneous expectations. Science is not pure observation and nothing more. Particularly so with historical sciences, and the study of history in general. Inference is a valid tool in science. So, perhaps you can explain why the inferences made with respect to, say, bird flight, are invalid.
**
Only if those laymen are actually willing to learn. You have been given starting points, and dismissed those out of hand. As such, anything else we might produce will likewise be dismissed. Your mind is closed at this point; it’s not worth the effort to teach this pig to sing.
Dave, all of your “arguments” are refuted here:
Good grief Icerigger; there’s certainly no evidence of intelligent design in those web pages. What a mess.
I’d stick with TalkOrigins.
**
Ah, well then. It should be trivially easy for you to refute them, so go to it. Frankly, I’m getting a little tired of your rather wordy handwaving.
**
And this, to me, is where it becomes clear that you’re not interested in serious argument so much as you want to yank our chains. What is your defense of IC against contrary evidence? You declare that evolutionist “true believers” are too narrow minded to accept the evidence, so you shouldn’t have to be open minded, either.
That, and the fact that you keep going on about how we’re unwilling to admit that theistic evolutionists exist, unless pressed. :rolleyes:
**
You didn’t address my point. Your argument is an argument by default. If evolution can’t explain it, you trot out God. If you’re so hot on philosophy, why aren’t you aware of the fallacy of the argument from ignorance?
Exactly my point. All your “philosophical” verbiage about epistemology and thought-systems is just creating a facade of knowledge. Ultimately, it’s just a GotG argument, based in the fallacy of argument from ignorance. You’ve presented a false dichotomy: ID vs. evolution. And if evolution can’t be demonstrated to explain absolutely everything, you can just declare ID to be the winner by default. You declare that somehow evolution’s triumphs are always just around the corner, but you don’t acknowledge what evolution is already able to explain.
That “Tower of Why” is nice, if you want to maintain a belief that the existence of God is proven by science (or philosophy or whatever you want to call your application of the argument from ignorance.) Or, for that matter, if you want to feel smarter than anyone else. There’s no chance that your security blanket will ever be taken away from you. Even if someone here presented you with a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how the clotting cascade evolved, backed by a mountain of evidence, you could still declare that we have to explain the bacterial flagellum, or the evolution of flight, or any number of things. And if someone then accused you of being narrow-minded, you could throw a few accusations of narrow-mindedness back at them.
If you really knew a single thing about epistemology, you’d know that if you don’t know the answer, then you don’t know the answer. If mainstream science can’t explain something yet, the honest responses are, “evolution can probably explain this, given how well evolution works in similar areas,” or, “I just don’t know the answer one way or the other.” A dishonest answer is, “You can’t explain it, you narrow-minded true believer, so that means I’m right. And that’s not argument by default- it’s just a philosophical argument comparing two thought-systems.” But ID is so intellectually bankrupt that that’s all you can really do to support it. If you put it in the ring with evolution, it would get knocked out in the first round. So you just shadow-box in rings that evolution hasn’t stepped into yet. And by your own admission, if evolution stepped into the ring, you’d jump out and run to the next ring.
While I have little faith that DA has any interest in a real discussion, I thought I would trot out the rough draft of the abiogenesis FAQ. It’s funny- it used to be that Beheists would claim that there was a “vast and thundering silence” on questions of how IC systems evolved. Supposedly, Behe had posed questions so difficult that no one could even begin to explain them Now they seem to have downgraded it to, “Well, your explanation isn’t detailed enough,” or, “well, that’s just a just-so story.”
Here is the rough draft of the abiogenesis mini-FAQ. There is an additional section I wanted to write on the early evolution of the genetic code, detailing how new codons were added as organisms evolved the ability to make new amino acids, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.
If you’re not familiar with DNA and proteins and suchlike, you might want to read the first few sections of the Molecular Genetics FAQ in order to get up to speed.
ABIOGENESIS MINI-FAQ
Creationists are fond of attacking the idea of abiogenesis. No matter how many times you tell them that abiogenesis is a separate issue from evolution, they throw it in the face of evolutionists, usually with some sneers about “if you can explain that, there’s a Nobel Prize waiting for you.” Frequently you hear them say that the question of the origin of life (and in particular the origin of the genetic code) is so difficult that mainstream scientific journals contain a “thundering silence” on the issue. Of course, this is all nonsense. Aside from the fact that the creationists are using a classic God-of-the-Gaps argument, there’s plenty of fascinating work being done on a variety of issues relating to abiogenesis, and I’ve written this FAQ to present some of this work to laymen.
This FAQ is not meant to be comprehensive. There are a large number of issues relating to abiogenesis, and I’m simply not familiar with them all. For example, many scientists are working on the question of what chemical conditions are necessary to produce the basic building blocks of life. In this FAQ I’m not going to answer the chemical questions, and instead I will try to address some of the informational questions. Moreover, I am only going to address the informational questions in broad outline, without detailing some of the debates over the precise details (if you’re curious, you can read the papers in the bibliography.) The real questions that creationists are demanding answers to are these: how did those building blocks organize themselves into the first living organism? If the genetic code is irreducibly complex, how could it evolve? I don’t expect my presentation of the answers to these questions to convince any creationists, but that’s not the point. All I want to do is to show that the questions aren’t so impossible as creationists would have us believe, and I hope to teach you some interesting stuff along the way.
The RNA world
In modern organisms, DNA stores genetic information which directs the synthesis of protein machines, which carry out the work of the cell by catalyzing chemical reactions (for example, digesting food, copying DNA, and so forth.) As first blush, this system is irreducibly complex: the DNA can’t do anything without proteins, and the cell doesn’t know how to make proteins without the information in DNA. How could such a system evolve?
In 1986 Walter Gilbert suggested that the answer might lie with RNA. RNA is a DNA-like molecule that is heavily involved in the steps by which the information in DNA is used to make proteins. Gilbert suggested that at an early stage in the history of life, the machinery of life was entirely made of RNA, which served both to store information (like DNA) and to do work (like proteins.) Later, the RNA lifeforms evolved the ability to use DNA for information storage and proteins for catalysis. This idea was vindicated when Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman discovered that RNA molecules can, in fact, catalyze reactions just like proteins can. For this work, they won the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. (See? The creationists were right- there really are Nobel prizes available for scientists who work on abiogenesis!)
RNA is, as I said, used heavily in protein synthesis. First, the information in the DNA is copied to RNA. This “messenger RNA” is then sent to the RNA-rich ribosome, which assembles amino acids into the protein whose sequence is encoded in the messenger RNA. The ribosome grabs onto the amino acids by RNA handles called “transfer RNA.” (For a fuller explanation, see my molecular genetics FAQ xxx.) The parts of the ribosome that are directly involved in the chemical reactions that link the amino acids together are made of RNA, and the RNA forms a “catalytic triad” that mimics the triad found in digestive enzymes that catalyze similar reactions. The proteins in the ribosome have been compared to “mortar” that holds the RNA “bricks” together: the RNA does the real work, and the proteins just make the RNA more stable. In fact, the ribosome retains much of its ability to synthesise proteins even if you strip away all the ribosomal proteins, leaving behind pure RNA. The fact that the protein-synthesizing machinery is so heavily built of RNA lends support to the idea that RNA-based lifeforms gradually gained the ability to manipulate amino acids and link them together to make proteins. Moreover, other “molecular fossils” of the RNA world can be found in our biochemistry. For example, our cells store energy in the form of ATP, which is one of the components of RNA. Other biomolecules have a “handle” of ribose, another component of RNA, which they use to interact with proteins.
How did these first, RNA-based lifeforms come to be? Ultimately, all one needs for life to begin is a molecule of RNA that can replicate itself, or a small number of RNAs (say, three or four) that form a self-replicating system. Once that RNA starts replicating, it can mutate, which means that it can evolve into more complicated RNA-replicating systems which contain more and more different RNAs with specialized functions. There’s nothing particularly inconceivable about the idea that the initial, self-replicating RNA could come to be. For example, suppose that if you made an RNA at random, there’s a one in a billion chance that the RNA will be able to self-replicate. If the primordial ocean contains (just for the sake of argument) a trillion random RNA molecules, then a thousand of them will be able to self-replicate! Of course, in reality less than one in a billion RNA molecules will have that ability. On the other hand, the number of random RNA molecules available might be quite large: if you hold up a pin against the background of the night sky, the head of that pin blots out thousands of galaxies, each containing trillions of stars. (Mind you, my estimate of “thousands” is probably far too conservative.) How many planets are there on which the conditions are right for forming random RNA molecules? Scientists are currently trying to put more specific numbers on this argument. First, they are trying to find an RNA molecule that can replicate itself (RNA molecules have already been found which can replicate other RNA’s.) Once they do this, they will be able to determine which parts of the RNA are critical to its function, and thus they can calculate what percentage of random RNA molecules will have the same function. Secondly, scientists are trying to find out roughly how many planets have the right conditions for these processes to take place.
Amino acids enter the scene
How did this RNA world gain the ability to synthesise proteins? It is thought that the first interactions between RNA and amino acids came about when RNA enzymes (or “ribozymes”) evolved the ability to use amino acids as cofactors. Cofactors are molecules that proteins use to enhance their chemical abilities. For example, hemoglobin uses a heme cofactor to bind oxygen more efficiently than amino acids alone could. In an RNA world, the diverse chemical functionalities of amino acids would make amino acids attractive cofactors. Ribozymes thus evolved which had the ability to bind to amino acids and use them in chemical reactions. (Even today, some ribozymes still use amino acids as cofactors.)
However, the loops of RNA which are needed for a ribozyme to recognize and bind a particular amino acid are complicated, and it’s inefficient for each ribozyme to have to independently evolve such structures. On the other hand, it’s easy for one RNA loop to recognize another. The ribozyme lifeforms thus evolved a system by which some ribozymes would recognize particular amino acids and attach themselves as “handles” to individual amino acid molecules. Other ribozymes could then simply evolve a short stretch of sequence that would bind to the handle, and they would thereby be able to snag an amino acid molecule for use as a cofactor. These ribozyme handles ultimately evolved into the transfer RNAs which serve as handles for amino acids during protein synthesis.
(I should mention that there are a number of differing opinions on the details of this step. Some scientists follow the model I describe above, whereas others argue that instead of binding individual amino acids, the ribozyme handles bound chains composed of one type of amino acid repeated over and over. Some scientists also believe that the association of particular amino acids with particular handles- and therefore with particular codons in the modern genetic code- is entirely arbitrary, whereas others believe that the codon assignments are the result of a physical affinity between the particular amino acid and an RNA handle containing its anticodon. Currently, experiments are underway to determine which of these views is correct. Again, if you want more details, see the papers in the bibliography.)
Over time, ribozymes evolved which could use two or more amino acid cofactors for the same reaction. As time went on, the RNA parts of the ribozymes started to shrink as they waned in importance, while more and more cofactors were added. Meanwhile, ribozymes evolved which could link these amino acids into short chains, perhaps to enhance the stability of the enzyme. Ultimately, most ribozymes became nothing more than recognition sequences that could grab onto the appropriate RNA handles and bring together the right combination of amino acids for a job; these ribozymes became our modern messenger RNA. The handles became transfer RNA, while the ribozymes that linked the amino acids together became ribosomes.
Creationism is not, as you say, an exclusively Protestant phenomenon. As Evangelical Fundamentalists and Catholics get cosier and cosier, we’re beginning to see a lot of cross-overs in theology and philosophies. Here is an example of Catholic Creationism from the Keeping It Catholic Homeschool Site. And lest you think it is an isolated case, here is yet another self-described Catholic site that is profoundly biased toward Ignorant Design and Cretinism. (Oops, sorry about the typos.)
I stand corrected.
Behe contended that it had not been explained. That contention has not been overthrown. As for my bias: well, go ahead and think that I am biased in my way and you are not in your direction. That only helps prove my point.
I’m not here to “do” science, as I am not a scientist. I am functioning as a philosopher of evolutionary science as presently conceived. I am asking for evidence to refute Behe’s claims, and to demonstrate step-by-step evolution. I am being skeptical of your explanations. I dissent from them. Or is that not permitted because we are in this area of dogma where no questioning is permitted?
A variation of the “your dad’s uglier than my dad” schoolyard routine. When one cannot defend their own position, they will often switch over to an opposing position, as if the alleged weakness of the other position is an argument in favor of the first position. Sorry; not playing that game.
I dealt with this in one of my posts, obviously to no avail. I already said there was no conceivable experiment, as ID deals with a spirit Being. The point here is that Darwinism IS claiming to be strictly scientific. Therefore, it has to provide the scientific demonstrations. My complaint is that these are never admitted to be inadequate to the extent that the entire theory of materialistic evolution might be questioned. Only particular applications can be questioned as inadequate or incomplete. Well, some of us think that dozens and dozens of inadequacies in particulars add up to one big general inadequacy.
Not empirically, because that is impossible. It is a philosophical argument. But if one disallows philosophy in the pursuit of truth about the universe, or thinks that metaphysics is vastly inferior to empirical philosophy (i.e., science), then they will tend to argue as you do.
And of course, this is precisely the attitude I am critiquing: this refusal to allow any thinking about the universe except materialistic empirical thinking, and the inevitable charge of dishonesty.
If ID is true, that would seem to follow. I don’t see how this is any more objectionable than people like you saying that ID must be false, and its adherents dishonest or equivalent to young-earth creationists. Ours is simply an honest position; yours is filled with the usual prejudices against dissenters and those who dare to disagree.
I agree with this; however, when you argue your points, you don’t appear to me to allow the possibility that ontological naturalism could be wrong, or if you do at all; you quickly dismiss the alternative derisively as “God of the Gaps” – as if by giving it a derogative name decisively refutes it and makes it a position that only simpletons and anti-intellectuals (and, of course, “dishonest people”) take.
What natural process can create the new structures necessary for evolution to proceed, besides mutations?
You miss my sarcasm, which is a commentary on the attitudes of materialist evolutionists, who frown upon God, yet introduce concepts that are essentially the same in attributes. God is disallowed, but the omnipotent atom is put in His place. Matter supposedly has this inherent capability to produce all the wonders of the universe. How this is seen to require less faith than belief in a God Who does the same thing (whether by evolution or special creation) is beyond me.
You can keep demanding empirical proofs where none can be had if you wish. Keep missing the point. I’ve come to expect this from folks who seem incapable of comprehending any point of view other than their own. They merely keep repeating their own position as if they haven’t even heard or understood another. Materiualistic evolution, in the end, requires every bit as much “faith” as ID or some species of “straight creationism.”
Not quite. My position is that “if you believe that nature designed itself in accord with natural processes and laws as we now know them, then explain to me how that happened. If you cannot, then I am entitled to posit a Designer, as at least equally plausible explanation, whether this falls within the range of the definition of science as you conceive it or not.”
This is a pretty good statement, especially given other of your remarks. I have no problem with something being outside of science. One only would if they think that science is the sum of all knowledge. I do not, and if you do, please tell me why. I’m dying to find out.
LOL It gets us back to the old standard silly arguments against God and anything not within currently fashionable materialistic dogma. We must dismiss all that as the equivalent of “fairy magic” or (another favorite) “Santa Claus.” I love it. You’re so “textbook” it is hilarious. Never mind all the great philosophers who have believed in God through the centuries (including even such a one as David Hume). We must dismiss all that speculation as “fairy magic.” LOL
Okay; how about this?: “scientists are allowed to consider such a thing as long as they realize it is the epistemological equivalent to fairy magic.” Do you like that better?
I see, as long as such positions can be characterized as having “as much merit” as “standard young-earth creationism”? Gee, thanks. How open-minded and tolerant of you.
No kidding. And just because someone can come up with a fanciful “theoretical” scenario for the pathway of evolution in particulars and appeal to the future where we will, of course, figure everything out, does not make THAT true, either.
“It’s impossible for anything but materialistic evolution to have done it” is hardly valid philosophical grounds for materialistic evolutionism to stand on.
That’s funny. I never made such a claim (only as a judgment in particular cases; that it HAS not been, not that it CANNOT be), yet this shows my profound “bias” and “ignorance.” Keep calling me names and ignoring my challenge to demonstrate the step-by-step process of evolution in particulars, and I will keep showing that you have nothing to back up your particular claims.
No, that is your game, not mine. I don’t see the great philosophers and great theistic scientists defending fairy magic. I see them defending God. You can pretend that there is no philosophical distinction if you like, and that will show YOUR
“bias…and ignorance” of the history of philosophy and science.
Of course, any dissent is always pure religious faith, whereas materialistic evolution is solid science, always based on observation. You paint with a very broad brush and can’t see beyond your own nose. Now why don’t you get down to business and produce these proofs and demonstrations that you say are there, rather than doing Philosophy 0101, and rather badly at that?
Yours,
Dave
This not a philosophical “argument,” it is simply tautology. There is a difference. Philosophical “argument” has a specific meaning within the discipline. if you actually have any background in philosophy (which I am starting to doubt) you should know that in order for a philosophical position to be meaningful it must syllogistically defensible. in other words you have to start with certain stipulated facts (called “predicates” in philosophy) and use them to demonstrate that a postulated position must be “true.” (this is called “logic.” maybe you’ve heard of it)
You are simply starting with an unfalsifiable assertion and claiming that this, per se, is a philosophical argument. It is not. What it is is religion. Please do not confuse philosophy with religion. Philosophy does not mean simply pulling random theories out of your ass or believing anything on faith. Philosophy is a rational discipline with strict rules. It is more akin to mathematics than to religion.
You have failed, for instance, to make any case, philosophically or scientifically, as to why your hypothetical “god” is any more rational than Darwin’s Finch’s fairy dust, or invisible goblins, or Zeus, or aliens from Neptune.
An assertion of faith is not a crime, and it’s not necessarily stupid or wrong, but has no real value in a scientific, or even philosophical debate.
Reply to Darwin’s Finch:
Descriptions of the step-by-step process that supposedly occurs, and has been demonstrated. No
one has shown this with regard to the bacterial flagella, and the further examples of flight and
whales were equally deficient.
Your last post, which was a masterful attempt at evasion, topic-switching, and silly equations of
anything other than materialism to “fairy magic” and “young-earth creationism.” Your brush is so
broad that you couldn’t paint Japan without hitting California too.
You prove your case first and then we can move on to ID. I refuse to go along with the usual
topic-switching tactics, which enable one to escape close scrutiny of the weaknesses and flaws of
their own position.
We go on doing our science in the same fashion; we simply acknowledge that it is apparent that
design is necessary for what we see in nature. If you believe in evolution, you keep doing science
within that framework, but without the materialism and dogmatic “science-only” mentality.
The sort described by these scientists and philosophers of science:
The real difficulty of Darwinism is the well-known problem of explaining an evolution
which prima facie may look goal-directed, such as that of our eyes, by an incredibly large
number of very small steps; for according to Darwinism, each of these steps is the result of
a purely accidental mutation. That all these independent accidental mutations should have
had survival value is difficult to explain.
(Sir Karl Popper, widely regarded as the foremost philosopher of science, Objective
Knowledge, rev. ed., 1979, 269-270)
Neither Darwin, nor any Darwinian has so far given an actual causal explanation of the
adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ.
(Sir Karl Popper, in "Evolution: Myth, Metaphysics, or Science?," John Little, New
Scientist, 4 September 1980, 709)
To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of
chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with
the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an
immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed
so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur
of protest.
(Ernst Chain, biologist who won a Nobel Prize for penicillin research, cited in "Was Darwin
Wrong?," Francis Hitching, Life, April 1982, 50)
Are we justified in making the leap from gradual small-scale changes, like selection in
peppered moths, or speciation in the galapagos . . . to large-scale results, like the existence
of elephants and oak trees? Some evolutionists have felt unhappy about this.
(Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum, Evolution, 1978, 141)
Development is the greatest mystery in biology, but we may need to understand its
complexity in biolochemical detail before we can understand the alterations of ontogeny
that are the history of evolution. the developmental how of evolution is largely unanswered
because the mechanisms of development are so poorly understood.
(D.J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 1979, 182-183)
A causal explanation can be given for past biological events. Yet such an explanation will
often have to be so unspecific and so purely formal that its explanatory value can certainly
be challenged. In dealing with a complex system, an explanation can hardly be considered
very illuminating that states: "Phenomenon A is caused by a complex set of interacting
factors, one of which is B." Yet often this is about all one can say.
(Ernst Mayr, Science, vol. 134, 1961, 1503)
. . . the ability of a theory, here materialistic evolution, to supply "facts" to the true
believer that the mere, neglected, primary data in no way warrant. The believer
looks upon the most innocuous facts and sees in them a stunning confirmation of
his theory, where a person who is not committed to the hypothesis sees
irrelevant or, sometimes, hostile information. Thus the believer builds a great
edifice of pseudo-knowledge which, like cotton candy, is spun from a little bit of
sugar and a lot of air.
(Michael J. Behe, "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy" - Chapter 10a; Response to K.
John Morrow, Jr. - http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter10a.html )
Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga (no dummy: in fact, I have had atheists tell me he is arguably
the greatest living philosopher) chronicles how some leading materialist evolutionists think that not
only the fundamentalist, young-earth creationists are invincibly ignorant and incorrigible, but all
who would dare doubt doctrinaire evolutionism at all:
[Daniel Dennett:] To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts
that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of
evolution is simply ignorant--inexcusably ignorant . . . .
Note that you don't have to reject evolution in order to qualify as inexcusably
ignorant: all you have to do is harbor a doubt or two. You study the evidence with
great care, but are finally doubtful that God did it that way: according to Dennett,
you are then inexcusably ignorant. Here Dennett is stealing a march on Richard
Dawkins, who wrote in a New York Times book review that,
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or
wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
I say Dennett goes Dawkins one better here, because at least Dawkins gives us
skeptics a choice. We could be ignorant, or stupid, or insane or maybe even wicked.
But Dennett is made of sterner stuff: he gives us no options at all, and in fact plumps
for two of Dawkins' possibilities: we evolutionary skeptics are both ignorant and
wicked (inexcusably). Apparently evolution is like the law: ignorance of it is no
excuse. Here Dennett and Dawkins remind one of a certain kind of religious
personality with which we are all too familiar: if you disagree with them, you are not
only wrong, but wicked, and should be punished, if not in this world then certainly in
the next.
("Darwin, Mind, and Meaning,"
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/dennett.html )Given that you admit to ignorance as to the basics of evolution, how can you possibly claim that you are functioning as a “philosopher of evolutionary science”? You don’t even know the philosophy, and I suspect you know little of the history, that provides the foundation for evolution, or even science in general. And it takes more to being skeptical than saying “I don’t believe you.” That’s being hard-headed, not skeptical.
Sorry, but that’s exactly the game you’re playing. You cannot defend ID or IC, so you revert ot making ludicrous requests of evolutionary science by creating, and attacking, strawmen which likewise cannot be defended.
Given that you know little, if anything, about evolutionary processes, and what is, or is not known (beyond what Behe has written about), how can you justify any claims about Darwinism being non-scientific? Do you even know the fundamental logic of Darwinism? Three statements of fact and a syllogism. If you don’t know them, you cannot pretend to be able to question them. It’s really that simple.
Another strawman. Philosophical thinking is not disallowed. What you fail to comprehend is that metaphysics cannot be verified, nor falsified. They therefore provide little in the way of knowledge about the physical world.
Yet more strawmen. I have never claimed that ID must be false. I have claimed it is unverifiable. If you don’t understand the difference, you fail as a philosopher.
Ontological naturalism could, indeed, be false. But that has little impact on the methodology. The scientific method is not built around investigating the metaphysic of naturalism.
Natural selection.
**
Good thing that your statement doesn’t represent the foundation of evolution, then, huh?
Reply to Darwin’s Finch:
And again, I answer, for about the 5th time now (but with a bit more specificity): something that goes beyond Mayr’s description:
Why is this so difficult? What part of “causal explanation” don’t you get? The very fact that a simple demand (of something which is supposedly universally demonstrable) is met with derision, obfuscation, and all sorts of name-calling and second-guessing of my open-mindedness, fairness, and basic education, etc. (perhaps my patriotism, sanity, and loyalty to my wife and kids will be next? LOL), proves the existence of the problem here critiqued: the irrational dogmatism of materialistic evolutionism (as seen in Alvin Plantinga’s comment).
I’m happy to record all these insulting potshots on my website. If you want to be perceived as pompous asses by readers of my website (which is fairly popular), feel free. I follow the talk radio dictum: “if someone is making a fool of themselves, you get out of the way and let them.”
Science is the philosophy of empiricism. That doesn’t mean that it has no theoretical elements. Of course it does. But if your “proofs” are only of a theoretical nature, and not empirical and falsifiable, then I must ask: how are they any different, or at all superior to ID, which you have been lambasting as “non-scientific” (as if that were a dirty word)?
I see. I will keep awaiting your detailed step-by-step explanations that you say are there.
I don’t; I say that inference in a certain (materialist evolutionist) direction, to the exclusion of hard empirical evidence and observation is no more worthy of belief than ID.
If your only recourse is to fall back on the abstract grand theory, then truly the two alternatives are epistemologically equal, and equally plausible. Your theory succeeds to the extent that it can demonstrate and explain better than ID (and according to standard scientific methodology). Show me these processes! Quit beating around the bush and produce the goods. I will keep hounding you till you do, and you can call me all the names you wish. I’m in the mood for some folly and a good laugh. I rather enjoy it once in a while.
Here we go! LOL “And in this ring, blurting out personal attacks, is Darwin’s Finch” (drum roll and twirling monkeys and spotlights…).
Nope; I disagreed and dissented on the strength of the evidence. There is a difference, believe it or not. I don’t “have to accept it because I HAVE to, because ‘all intelligent folks do’,” which seems to be your position. I looked at it and I have a different opinion than you do. Do you find it difficult to handle such diversity of opinion without name-calling?
I see. This is a very convenient escape route for you to take. Unable to produce the hard evidence which you say is there for all to see --, instead you attack me and pretend that I won’t accept any evidence because I have not accepted your paltry evidence thus far. I must congratulate you on your chutzpah, if nothing else. If your backbone is THAT weak, then indeed I have underestimated your ability to substantiate your position.
So you go run and hide from close scrutiny of your viewpoint. That’s usually what the true believer and the dogmatist with blind faith does. Like Plantinga pointed out, I am, on the other hand, obviously “wicked” and “inexcusably ignorant” because I don’t agree with you. LOL
Yours,
Dave
What you are asking is to be spoon-fed data. Not going to happen. As I have mentioned, logical inference is a valid scientific tool; as such, one does not need to demonstrate each indiviudal step in a lineage. One need only demonstrate that the result is a logical conclusion, based upon facts in evidence. And that has been demonstrated, starting with the articles I linked to. You dismissed them simply because you cling to the obstinate belief that science = direct observation, and nothing more.
Interesting that you didn’t really answer the question. “Facade”, indeed. How about you tone down the invective and actually try answering the question.
You have already dismissed out of hand “[my] case”. I’m giving you the opportunity to actually provide some enlightenment here, rather than the handwaving and pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo you’ve been engaging in so far. Have I overestimated you?
In other words, nothing whatever is gained. You substitute one perceived metaphysic for another one.
In other words, you seek only a metaphysical explanation for first cause. Sorry, science won’t help you there. And, as you can see from your quotes, scientists are well aware of that fact. To rail against evolutionary science because it does not provide you with your desired metaphysic simply adds yet another strawman to the already enormous pile you have created.
Um, Dave, the laws of probability imply evolution.
They imply evaporation, too.
Would you like a description of how each and every water molecule surpasses surface tension and escapes?
It’s easy to explain. Accidental mutations that have no survival value disappear, and we don’t see them. We see the march of accumulated value.
Hello? –tap tap– Is this thing on?
And you’re doing an admirable job, I must say!
Even if these “proofs” are of a theoretical nature, they can still be falsified. Note that falsification does not come by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, “Lalala - I can’t hear you!” Which is, to date, all you have done.
**
You have been shown the goods: you have stated you “believe in” microevolution (even though you demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge as to what it actually entails). What more do you wish to be shown? (Step-by-step processes aren’t going to happen, so you can give that up.)
You quote Mayr and Futuyma - have you actually read any of their works? Futuyma, for example, has written a number of textbooks on the subject. For the logical and theoritical foundations of the various mechanisms, you can start there. If you wish to learn about the processes in action, you can check out the Talkorigins website, or pick up any issue of Nature. You can learn more by reading anyof a number of palaeontological texts.
**
Personal attacks? Hardly.
You looked at it and immediately formed an opinion, without investigating any further. I said they were starting points: you know, something to get you started? From there, you can make inquiries regarding specific aspects, or, you can do as you did and just “harumph” your way through it because it may not agree with your metaphysical philosophy. You looked at it and formed a knee-jerk opinion, not an informed one.
And you don’t really understand what the phrase “name-calling” means, do you?
Yawn. You won’t accept the evidence because it suits you not to.
How about this: summarize the evidence presented in, say, the link on whale evolution. Just so we know you actually read and understood it. Then, come up with a list of critiques that amount to more than just handwaving about first-causes. THEN we can talk about whether you have truly dismissed the information pesented thus far for valid reasons.
So now you’re gonna start in with the attacks too? Okay folks; fasten your seatbelts for another mudfest!
Translation: because we can’t produce the evidence that our empty rhetoric implied that we have, therefore we have to attack the person who demands that we live up to our own standards of evidence and demonstration, and make out that he is a closed-minded simpleton."
Very impressive, Ben.
This switches the topic again. One thing at a time.
Is that what I said? LOL Coulda fooled me. Perhaps my memory fails me, though. Can you remind me where I made such a remark? Thanks.
Alright; this is progress. What do you think, then, of the intellectual capacities and open-mindedness of theistic evolutionists?
I responded at length to this “God of the Gaps” business. It is a tired, silly platitude.
Whatever. I await your replies to Behe and the step-by-step demonstrations of evolution-in-process.
I sure do: it can explain much about microevolutionary process, which has been demonstrated time and again. It is not so explanatory when it comes to macroevolution.
I think the word “proof” is used far too much. You know very little about what I believe, but keep talking; I enjoy the diversion. 
Oh, good: two new groundless personal attacks to add to my collection! LOL My goal now is to be called incorrigibly wicked and insane. I won’t give up till I hear those words. Then perhaps I’ll conclude that I have hit a nerve.
Keep showing me your evidence and I’ll give you my honest opinion. Keep thinking you’ll never convince me; that it ain’t possible because of my profoundly “closed mind.” That’s what my Catholic friends thought before I converted to Catholicism, too.
It’s funny that skeptics about Christianity operate in much the same fashion: they question anything and everything and no evidence of any sort is ever sufficient for them. But when the same sort of (methodologically) honest, sincere skepticism is applied towards materialistic evolution, all of the sudden it is Chicken Little and proof that a madman and anti-intellectual troglodyte is on the loose. I find that uproariously hilarious and ironic.
I’m talking about tendencies and systems of thought; you guys are the ones getting personal. So kindly don’t project your deficiencies onto me, thank you.
Okay; marking in notebook, “completely ignorant about epistemology, cuz Ben said so, and he can’t be wrong.”
Great; so this is another admission that indeed you can’t explain what Behe stated that you can’t explain. Good. So we’ve come full circle. Now, tell me: how does that show that Behe was being dishonest or incompetent in his original claim? It, of course, backs him up rather solidly. Now you are getting angry because you didn’t know all this stuff that you made out that you did know. Hence, name-calling, etc., and blame-shifting so you can get off the hot seat. How quickly things change. First everyone was in a frenzy showing how ignorant and stupid “Hebzabeb” was. Now when the tables are turned it is an altogether different ballgame, and the silly personal attacks show that the answers are not forthcoming, more quickly than anything else.
Is THIS how you conceive my argument? LOL Wow . . . .
Yeah, it’s a ROCKY road for you, alright. I’m curious: is theistic evolution also “intellectually bankrupt”?
Sorry; my memory escapes me again. Where did I say this? What I said was that I was an agnostic on the question of evolution. I am not an agnostic on the question of theism. I am a theist, and at the moment I am not convinced that a materialistic brand of evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain biological diversity and transformation. Theistic evolution might very well be the true state of affairs. I’m open to being convinced of that position.
But it’s true that you’ll never convince me of materialism, in all likelihood, because that would entail a denial of God’s existence, and my Christian belief is far too strong for that to occur. If I have any “unyielding dogmatism,” it is with regard to the existence of God and the truth of Christianity (but not without an abundance of cumulative rational evidences, I would say – not “blind faith” at all). But evolution itself is, of course, a completely different question; one that is open for examination.
One of the ironies I have always savored in this debate is that the Christian need not necessarily adopt evolution or some species of creationism simply because he is a Christian. We are free to adopt either, as long as evolution is not regarded as a replacement or disproof of God (which would be a contradiction for a Christian).
The materialist atheist, on the other hand, is in no such position. He must adopt materialistic evolution as his brand of “creation” because his position allows him no other option. Hence, the rigid, irrational dogmatism from these circles (fully in evidence already, in this dialogue). It becomes a dogma precisely because it serves largely the same function that religion serves for the Christian: an explanation for the origin and wonder of the universe.
But the materialist pretends that no faith at all is involved on his part: that his is the “hard-nosed, scientific” outlook and all opposition is snake-handling Neanderthal, Scopes Trial young-earth fundamentalism… This is where the initial folly enters in, and taints the discussion (which * could * be a very enjoyable and fruitful one) from the outset.
God bless,
Dave
How about you leave the hysterics behind, Dave? You’re no martyr to whatever the hell your cause is. If you can’t discuss the topic without resorting to foolish, “Oooh! I’m being attacked!” nonsense, then you are only demonstrating immaturity. You sure as hell aren’t scoring any “debate points” by doing so.
For those of you who are interested, here’s DA’s webpage: