<< NEW HUXTER:
What IS Darwinism? I believe that anti-evolutionists refer to evolution as
Darwinism so as to make it appear cultish - like scientists are following a
man's teachings (such as being a Moonie, or a Branch Davidian) rather than
adhering to a set of scientific tenets. When an antimaterialistic
supernaturalist claims that Design is the best answer, one must be
skeptical,
since they have abandoned any hope of reaching a testable, observable, or
inferrable conclusion. Where does one go after Design is invoked? What more
can possibly be learnned, if the whim of a 'Designer' is at the heart of the
matter? What is to prevent this 'designer' from throwing a wrench in the
works to befoul our efforts? I see the so-called intelligent design
movement
as a band of sad wishful thikers who, seeing that not all questions have an
answer RIGHT NOW, see an opportunity to inflict their baseless 'faith' into
the realm of science. At least as far as the lay public is concerned. If
All scientists had been of the same mentality as those in the design
mobvement throughout time, I am certain that we would still be living in
grass huts along river banks content in our 'knowledge' that a 'designer'
made it rain.. made plants grow... made the sun shine... etc....
Bertvan:
Many skeptics of "random mutation and natural selection as an explanation
for macro evolution" have claimed Darwinism was a moving target and wish
someone would define it.
#### Perhaps because they are leaving out a few other things? Like drift?
Bert:
When materialists claim to have the "true" explanation,
#### Do they make such a claim? I thought 'truth' was purely a philosophical
game?
Bert:
one must be skeptical, since materialists have abandoned any hope of
achieving a more reasonable explanation which might include design.
### Why might an explanation including the supernatural be more reasonable
than one that does not?
Bert:
Where does one go after Design is invoked? One tries to work out the
details
of the design.
### So where is THIS work? WHO is trying to work out the details of the
'design'? I've seen the 'explanatory filter', which claims to be able to
detect design (providing it is one of those 'questions' that we do not yet
have another answer for...), but nothing about working out the details. In
fact, when I have asked designists for some o fht edesign details - who was
the designer, is there a step-by-step explanation for the design and its
implementation - they fall silent. Like I said, I'm not sure what
'Darwinism' is. I acceopt evolution and did research on the phylogeney of
primates, but I never even heard the word Darwinism until I started checking
out these debates. Nor did I ever receive an indoctrination on 'materialist
philosophy.' Similarly, I had never heard of THAT until I started reading
these debates, and was informed that - whether I knew it or not - I was
simply an adherent to a materialist philosophy. And this is bad, because I
do not take into account the whims of an anthropomorphic superbeing that has
never been seen and for Whom no evidence - other that a single uncorroborated
ancient religious text and personal anecdotes - exists.
NEW HUXTER:
>WHY does one have to 'believe in' design to find this mysterious plan
>or purpose? You are delving into metaphysics and philosophy again.
>How is one to find 'plan' or 'purpose' by examining empirical evidence?
Bertvan:
One doen't have to believe in design to figure out the details of the design,
but I suspect it might help.
#### Details? What do the details have to do with 'plan' or 'purpose'?
NEW HUXTER: wrote concerning micro evolution and macro evolution:
>Actually, it isn't even that. It is merely descent from a parent stock.
> What it IS, is the testing of the methodology of using DNA sequence
>data to glean information on relationships. There have numerous
>such tests - the above is but one example. If the methodology works
>for small scale issues like this What is the rationale for assuming
>that it fails for more 'diffiicult' problems? Not a SINGLE
>anti-evolutionist has been able to provide a rational, reasonable argument.
Bertvan:
The rationale for assuming something true in one situation is universally
true is the same for assuming the mechanisms might be different. Both are
assumptions.
#### The difference is that one assumption is premised on observation, the
other on the hopes that those observations are incorrect. DNA accumulates
mutations. These can be passed on. That is not an assumption. That is an
observation. What you are implying is that because we did not opbserve the
mutations occuring and being passed on in the past that we cannot therefore
know that the same process occurred then. Do you not see the philosophical
baggage in that implication?
BV:
>>I am not a scientist, but I can even think of a few myself. I hope
>>>cientists who believe design and purpose to be a part of nature are
thinking of others.
NEW HUXTER:
Well, lets hear them. It would be a switch from the usual 'your
philosophy is flawed' fluff we hear so often.
Bertvan
Any of my speculations would be similar to just-so stories.
#### But you said that even YOU had some. Just-so stories are not
speculations.
Bert:
I find the work of Kauffman, Margulis, Spetner, Shapiro, panspermia, Behe,
and Denton all interesting. (If you want to have discussions with me, and
I can't imagine why you do, you'll have to speak politely.)
Bertvan
#### Hmmm... yes - antievolutionists are often more concerned about
'politeness' than they are about substance. Spetner, Behe, and Denton I have
read. Spetner's work is seriously flawed, as has been pointed out here
(http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm) and elsewhere. Not to mention
the fact that he believes that only 365 'kinds' of animal were on the ark,
and that they had all the genetic variation they would need to give rise to
the MILLIONS of species extant today built right in (see
http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/). Behe's notions of IC have been
refuted - even before he wrote his book (see
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm). I found much of his book to
be seriously flawed.
As for Denton, I am just now reading EATiC and here too I find flaws -
surprisingly in the areas Denton should know the most about - molecular
biology (at least according to some of his biosketches. Some refer to him as
a molecular biologist. Others refer to him as a medical doctor. I guess it
depends on the target audience). In his treatment of % similarities, he is
'shocked' to see equidistance between bacteria and everything else. I guess
Denton has never done any actual research in the area. Bacteria are the
'outgroups' to pretty much everything else. When doing sequence comparisons,
one always uses an outgroup as a basis for comparisons. I do it all the
time. And, shock of shocks, regardless of WHAT outgroup is used, it is ALWAYS
more or less equidistant from all species it is compared to. What IS
shocking is that a 'molecular biologist' wouldn't realize that. That and the
'gaps' between 'classes' can easily be explained a nmber of ways - long
divergence times, or extinctions, for instance.
Thus far, Denton doesn't strike me as anything more than a chap trying ot
make a name for himself - he is, but surely - at least one hopes - not in the
way he was hoping....
>>