Posted on 08/05/2019 7:47:32 AM PDT by fishtank
Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out
August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman
When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.
by Jerry Bergman, PhD
My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
It appears to me that Mr. Kalamata has no clue what is, or is not, real science.
As for "clown"... well... eye of the beholder... pot meet kettle... etc.
In law, "proof" means "beyond reasonable doubt", but scientifically the word "proof" is not used.
Other words like "suggest" and "confirm" are used instead.
So, in that sense, I'll rephrase to say that your mathematical calculations are baseless and so neither confirm nor even validly suggest what you claim.
Numbers are needed to engineer most anything, but numbers by themselves are mere tools of imagination.
Bogus numbers never built anything useful.
>>By definition “the created kind” is a non-scientific term referring to supernatural creation, and therefore has no place in natural-science.
Baloney. The created kind has been a part of natural science from the beginning of creation. Atheists have tried to erase it from the ranks of science, but they have failed, and failed miserably.
>>The taxonomic rank of family goes back to the 1700s and refers to genera with similar characteristics, but there is no strict definition.
True. That is the new-fangled definition imagined by Linnaeus, which is still subject to the imagination of the user.
On the other hand, Children can typically understand the created kind. In his great work, “Natural Theology”, William Paley mentioned several kinds, such as the Lizard kind, Cat kind, and Deer kind:
“To say nothing of the reproduction of limbs in crustaceous animals, the wonderful but well attested fact, of the formation of a new eye in an animal of the lizard kind, in the place of one which had been cut out of the socket, is one which no atheistical theory can approach, in the way of explanation.” [William Paley, “Natural Theology.” Sheldon & Company, 1879, FN, p.33]
“In the cat kind there is a horny or prickly set covering the tongue, rendering it rough, and enabling it to take firmer hold of the prey. Birds also have a similar contrivance. In fish the tongue is covered by a number of teeth, serving the same purpose.” [Ibid. FN, pp.80-81]
“The different length of the intestines in carnivorous and herbivorous animals, has been noticed on a former occasion. The shortest, I believe, is that of some birds of prey, in which the intestinal canal is little more than a straight passage from the mouth to the vent. The longest is in the deer kind.” [Ibid. p.131]
I doubt any scientist of his day did not understand what Paley was referring to; and I doubt any serious scientist today does not understand that the created kind is what is typically called the “family”.
Mr. Kalamata
>>>It appears to me that Mr. Kalamata has no clue what is, or is not, real science.
I seriously doubt you do. I suspect you believe the evolution and big bang theories are real science.
************
>>>As for “clown”... well... eye of the beholder... pot meet kettle... etc.
No. Clowns are those who act like clowns. It is a rather simple observation.
Mr. Kalamata
Why there? If there was a universal flood, wouldn't the sand also be deposited in other places? If such a large deposit of sand only appears there, then it's likely that a universal flood may not be the best explanation.
You've got 10 to the 40th possible mutations against a search space 10 to the 77th strong right so if you do your exponential math you end up with 1/10 trillion trillion trillionth of the possible combinations so in that case are you more likely to succeed or fail--you're overwhelmingly more likely to fail to find one of the functional combinations even taking into account every organism that's lived on earth
Right, and that is just what natural-science does.
It begins with the base-assumption that science will only deal with natural explanations for natural processes.
Science leaves supernatural phenomenon & explanations to other categories of philosophy, i.e., theology.
But I must also mention, this was originally intended to be a methodological, not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
Our forefathers believed that scientists would take off their methodological smocks when they leave the lab for the night and then go home to their families where they'd thank God for dinner:
It's much more than unreasonable, it's strictly verboten -- by definition, when you admit supernatural processes or explanations, then you are no longer working in science, but in some other field, such as theology, miracles or, dare I say, magic.
Wow, well said.
Our Founding Fathers would have agreed.
Bears repeating.
>>Not so much luck necessarily required. Abiogenesis hypotheses do not require that a cell spring fully formed from some “primordial soup”, thus needing the “chance” event of “10 to the 164th power.”
The concept of “Abiogenesis” is about the stupidest form of pseudo-science imaginable. It barely rises to the level of pseudo-science.
Hear it from a real scientist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg&t=2s
Mr. Kalamata
Now unless you want to dismiss the commensurability of the way we think with the way the world as a whole functions, there is hardly a chance that I will ever ever be a virtuoso violinist. Still, give it some time, and lots of it, every single person born could be a virtuous violinists, if only the direction of our evolution should find that advantageous. So far, the development of eyesight has found that chance.
God's Word says not one word about science as we understand it.
Kalamata: "When God said he created the stars on the 4th day, the day after he created the plants, why doubt him?
Is that less scientifically tenable than the universe magically appearing out of nothing, or stars being created by exploding stars, the first of which magically appeared?"
Sure, it's hypothetically possible that God created plants somewhere before He created the stars we can see, but so far we've found no evidence of it.
That puts such ideas in the realm of scientific speculation.
As for the so-called Big Bang, nobody assumes it was "magical" and science has no serious explanation for it.
It remains, and will remain, the willing Act of our Creator.
If we circumscribe the object of your study in such a way that prohibits a complete explanation then science doesn't give the whole picture. It just gives it's natural aspects.
And who is to say? If you get to choose what science is, you're not exactly beginning with a blank slate. That choice functions as a presupposition, and you've begun as a philosopher or theologian.
its
>>It appears to me that Mr. Kalamata has no clue what is, or is not, real science.
As for “clown”... well... eye of the beholder... pot meet kettle... etc.<<
behe.
No more be said.
Well, there's the crux.
Obviously there are definitions of what constitutes a good chance that has nothing to do with the probability of it actually happening.
Kalamata: Obviously you do not.
Christ reminded us to believe the words of Moses.
Christians believe the words of Christ."
Neither Christ nor Moses ever said a single word about science as we understand it.
Kalamata: "I believe the words of Christ and of Moses, and you do not respect me because I dare to challenge your faith in the pseudo-science of evolutionism."
What you here call "pseudo-science" is, in fact, real science, natural-science by definition, and there is no other recognized definition for science.
Natural-science, by definitions, does not deal in words like "belief", "faith" or "truth", but rather in confirmed observations (="facts") and falsifiable explanations (="hypotheses" or "theories").
Basic evolution is a well-confirmed theory based on literal mountains of confirmed observations.
The Bible does not condemn science as we understand it, but does tell us to be fruitful, to multiply, to prosper, replenish and have dominion over life on Earth.
Those imply, to me at least, careful study & understanding of natural processes.
Kalamata to bwest: "Your sanctimonious attitude..."
"Sanctimonious attitude" is what I'm seeing from Kalamata.
Kalamata: "The only rational defense for your faith is scientific evidence for common descent, which you cannot provide."
In fact there are literal mountains of evidence -- including billions of fossils collected in hundreds of thousands of species -- each one showing transitional elements with species both before and, if any, after.
The fact that Kalamata refuses to see, much less recognize evidence for what it is, does not mean it isn't there.
Dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds.
Apes didn’t turn into humans.
Amoeba didn’t turn into anything but amoeba.
>>Dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds.
Apes didn’t turn into humans.
Amoeba didn’t turn into anything but amoeba.<<
By that analysis, aircraft are held aloft by benign angels.
"Junk DNA" is a term, like "Big Bang", which attained great popular cachet for being both short and descriptive.
The latest thinking on "junk DNA" is that some small part of it may indeed serve certain purposes.
Other parts may represent ancient characteristics now "turned off" in modern species which do, occasionally through mutations, get "turned back on".
This potential "turning off" and "turning on" of certain DNA functions can make "random" mutations far less than "random".
Kalamata: "Perhaps a better question to ask Collins would have been, 'How on earth could you believe such silliness in the first place?' "
Nobody has ever claimed that science, then or now, has "all the right answers", only that scientists continue to search for better explanations whenever evidence suggests they should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
