I saw this book at the Library the other day. Anyone read this? Looks interesting.
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/
Doubting Darwin - Merged
Doubting Darwin - Merged
Then saith He to Thomas... be not faithless, but believing. - John 20:27
Re: Doubting Darwin
It's being discussed a bit, but not gaining traction in changing opinion.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Re: Doubting Darwin
There is now about as much chance of getting the community of biological scientists in the 21st century to change their mind about evolution being a fact of nature as there would be of getting astronomers to change their minds about the earth going round the sun.
It wouldn't make any difference if Darwin turned up today and broadcast worldwide saying "Hey guys, I got it wrong!" It just makes too much sense of too many things.
It wouldn't make any difference if Darwin turned up today and broadcast worldwide saying "Hey guys, I got it wrong!" It just makes too much sense of too many things.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Re: Doubting Darwin
All one need to know about the book is the author (Stephen Meyer) and the general subject matter (Intelligent Design). With that knowledge, the work can be completely disregarded as pseudo-scientific nonsense and one can move on to more valuable pursuits.
The so called "problem" of what forms preceded the Cambrian explosion is just a warmed over missing link or missing fossil objection. And I believe that the fossils Meyers claims are missing have, in fact, actually been found.
Like the dog that would not know what to do with the car if he caught it, Meyers wouldn't know how to replace the rest of evolution with ID even if he were right about the pre-Cambrian "problem" which, of course, he is not.
More later.
The so called "problem" of what forms preceded the Cambrian explosion is just a warmed over missing link or missing fossil objection. And I believe that the fossils Meyers claims are missing have, in fact, actually been found.
Like the dog that would not know what to do with the car if he caught it, Meyers wouldn't know how to replace the rest of evolution with ID even if he were right about the pre-Cambrian "problem" which, of course, he is not.
More later.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Re: Doubting Darwin
GR33N, do you understand that "scientific theory" is a term of art, and that a given hypothesis has to have empirical support before it is considered to be a "theory"?
Do you understand that the validity of a scientific theory, like evolution, does not depend on faith in a given scientist, as if that person was a prophet?
Do you understand that intelligent design is not science at all, and that attempting to rebut a scientific theory with intelligent design is like trying to build a car out of literary devices?
If you understand any of the above, how exactly does this book look interesting?
Do you understand that the validity of a scientific theory, like evolution, does not depend on faith in a given scientist, as if that person was a prophet?
Do you understand that intelligent design is not science at all, and that attempting to rebut a scientific theory with intelligent design is like trying to build a car out of literary devices?
If you understand any of the above, how exactly does this book look interesting?
Re: Doubting Darwin
DrW wrote:All one need to know about the book is the author (Stephen Meyer) and the general subject matter (Intelligent Design). With that knowledge, the work can be completely disregarded as pseudo-scientific nonsense and one can move on to more valuable pursuits.
The so called "problem" of what forms preceded the Cambrian explosion is just a warmed over missing link or missing fossil objection. And I believe that the fossils Meyers claims are missing have, in fact, actually been found.
Like the dog that would not know what to do with the car if he caught it, Meyers wouldn't know how to replace the rest of evolution with ID even if he were right about the pre-Cambrian "problem" which, of course, he is not.
More later.
I expect that certain LDS apologists will lap up this Discovery Institute stuff just like Joseph Fielding Smith pimped Henry Morris' "flood geology".
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Re: Doubting Darwin
Hey GR33N! 
I haven't read it (yet?), but I understand that it is currently on several top ten lists.
Rumor has it that my dear friend DrW has purchased several of these books the day they hit the store shelves. Christmas gifts, I would imagine!
Raccoon!
Peace,
Ceeboo
GR33N wrote:I saw this book at the Library the other day. Anyone read this? Looks interesting.
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/
I haven't read it (yet?), but I understand that it is currently on several top ten lists.
Rumor has it that my dear friend DrW has purchased several of these books the day they hit the store shelves. Christmas gifts, I would imagine!
Raccoon!
Peace,
Ceeboo
Re: Doubting Darwin
Ceeboo wrote:Hey GR33N!GR33N wrote:I saw this book at the Library the other day. Anyone read this? Looks interesting.
http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/
I haven't read it (yet?), but I understand that it is currently on several top ten lists.
Rumor has it that my dear friend DrW has purchased several of these books the day they hit the store shelves. Christmas gifts, I would imagine!
Raccoon!
Peace,
Ceeboo
Well Hello Ceeboo,
Might have known that you would appear at the mention of Darwin. Rumors that I have purchased copies of the book are greatly exaggerated.
If I wanted to read religiously motivated fiction being passed off as fact, I could simply dig out some old Books of Mormon long stashed in the dark recesses of the garage and attic.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Re: Doubting Darwin
GR33N,
It might be useful to understand that there is the Fact of Evolution and there is the Theory of Evolution.
The Fact of Evolution is the sure knowledge that the organisms on this earth have changed forms over long spans of time, with many (most) species alive in the past eventually becoming extinct.
The Theory of Evolution, which is what Darwin so clearly formulated, was the mechanism through which these changes of form were accomplished, widely referred to as survival of the fittest.
Darwin did not write a book notifying the world that plants and animals had changed forms over geologic timespans. The book he wrote simply explained how plants and animals had changed forms. The FACT that it had happened hadn't been in serious dispute among the learned since at least the time of the Greeks.
Hope this helps.
It might be useful to understand that there is the Fact of Evolution and there is the Theory of Evolution.
The Fact of Evolution is the sure knowledge that the organisms on this earth have changed forms over long spans of time, with many (most) species alive in the past eventually becoming extinct.
The Theory of Evolution, which is what Darwin so clearly formulated, was the mechanism through which these changes of form were accomplished, widely referred to as survival of the fittest.
Darwin did not write a book notifying the world that plants and animals had changed forms over geologic timespans. The book he wrote simply explained how plants and animals had changed forms. The FACT that it had happened hadn't been in serious dispute among the learned since at least the time of the Greeks.
Hope this helps.
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
-
_MrStakhanovite
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Doubting Darwin
Here is my opinion GR33N,
Does the book sound interesting to you? If so, check it out and try reading it. If you really like it, buy it. If it bores you, the only thing you lost was some time. When you take on the burden of reading a book, you also create for yourself other responsibilities.
You’ve seen the reactions thus far, the book is fairly polarizing. People are either going to hail it has some kind of devastating critique of Neo-Darwinism (what that is, I’m not sure) and others are going to dismiss as a piece of propaganda pumped out by a think tank with a loose sense of morals.
You yourself are going to have to decide which side you are going to take (or find a rare position in the middle), and those is going to require even more reading. You know Meyer’s claims are going to be contested, so if you want to be intellectually honest, you are going to have to track down sources and see if he is on the up and up. I don’t mean going over Talk Origins and seeing what they have to say, I mean non-polemical sources that are just trying to explain concepts without aim to taking on Intelligent Design. That is no easy task, highly rewarding, but comes at a cost.
My assessment is that the return value from that book is simply not going to be worth the effort. When you have some time, check out this blog by Stephen Matheson. Matheson is a Cell Biologist at Calvin College and a conservative Christian. In that blog who goes through Meyer’s last book ‘Signature of the Cell’ chapter by chapter. He also had a chance to engage Meyer in person at an event, watch how Meyer and the Discovery Institute covered the event and how they treated Matheson.
Whatever you do please don’t do the following:
-Not read the book, but use the book as evidence against evolution
-Skim the book, and then use it as evidence against evolution
-Read the book, don’t follow up on any of what it said, and then use it as evidence against evolution.
Rather, read the book, follow up on its claims, take portions of it and approach people here to discuss it. People who care about this stuff will take the time to help you sort through it if they think you are honest.
Does the book sound interesting to you? If so, check it out and try reading it. If you really like it, buy it. If it bores you, the only thing you lost was some time. When you take on the burden of reading a book, you also create for yourself other responsibilities.
You’ve seen the reactions thus far, the book is fairly polarizing. People are either going to hail it has some kind of devastating critique of Neo-Darwinism (what that is, I’m not sure) and others are going to dismiss as a piece of propaganda pumped out by a think tank with a loose sense of morals.
You yourself are going to have to decide which side you are going to take (or find a rare position in the middle), and those is going to require even more reading. You know Meyer’s claims are going to be contested, so if you want to be intellectually honest, you are going to have to track down sources and see if he is on the up and up. I don’t mean going over Talk Origins and seeing what they have to say, I mean non-polemical sources that are just trying to explain concepts without aim to taking on Intelligent Design. That is no easy task, highly rewarding, but comes at a cost.
My assessment is that the return value from that book is simply not going to be worth the effort. When you have some time, check out this blog by Stephen Matheson. Matheson is a Cell Biologist at Calvin College and a conservative Christian. In that blog who goes through Meyer’s last book ‘Signature of the Cell’ chapter by chapter. He also had a chance to engage Meyer in person at an event, watch how Meyer and the Discovery Institute covered the event and how they treated Matheson.
Whatever you do please don’t do the following:
-Not read the book, but use the book as evidence against evolution
-Skim the book, and then use it as evidence against evolution
-Read the book, don’t follow up on any of what it said, and then use it as evidence against evolution.
Rather, read the book, follow up on its claims, take portions of it and approach people here to discuss it. People who care about this stuff will take the time to help you sort through it if they think you are honest.