Secular folks should worry.

[honorentheos]

MG, we've discussed the problem your bias causes for good faith discussion so many times. You can't see the opposing argument if you can't sincerely look at it from the perspective of there not being a god so no actual discussion takes place.

You've made an irrevocable decision immune from evidence. Ok. So you are here as a crusader for that cause. Ok. That cause unfortunately blends politics with religion in all the worst ways. Not great but it is what it is.

The pseudoscience you rely on is a double-edged sword. For you it cuts away doubt and conflict with your chosen belief biases. But for those without that bias it appears to be motivated reasoning which reflects poorly on the underlying religious beliefs they are protecting. You want to win back Gen Z? You need a different strategy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you want to understand Meyer, the branch of the Discovery Institute that he founded, and why what they do is not science, an excellent source is the Panda's Thumb.

https://pandasthumb.org

The odds of Mental Illness clicking on that link and exploring it for understanding is exactly 0%.

Speaking of evolutionary traits, I just learned about the palmaris longus, a vestigial muscle 85% of humans have from the days before or species branched off of some slack jawed tree swinger species:

https://youtu.be/rFxu7NEoKC8

The odds of MI watching that video is 0%, too. And if by some miracle the dopey muppet watched it, the odds of him moving the goal post around for his larp is 100%.

eta - from RI’s link - a very interesting conversation with ChatGPT3.5:

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2023/0 ... ether.html

- Doc

[Rivendale]

Theists like to answer the mystery of abiogenisis with an even bigger mystery. God of the gaps is narrowed by the progress of science despite the roadblocks religion has erected in the past. Germ theory deposed of evil spirits. Meteorology relieved Thor of his duty. As far as the predictive powers of evolution my first goto would be Tiktallik but Oxford Press casts doubt on this.

Chapter 4 considers a possible case from contemporary science: the theory of evolution and the predictive success of the Tiktaalik ‘missing link’ fossil in 2004. This predictive success seems more impressive than the Meckel case, and scientists initially expressed their enthusiasm for the discovery, indicating that they considered it evidentially very significant. However, the closer one looks the less evidentially significant it appears to be.

Then I recalled a book I read ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny which reminded me of how science tends to self correct. This article in nature describes some arguably successful novel predictions as well as the difficulty surrounding the methodol. https://www.nature.com/articles/s414 ... 437-x Thanks physics guy!

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]
Speaking of evolutionary traits, I just learned about the palmaris longus, a vestigial muscle 85% of humans have from the days before or species branched off of some slack jawed tree swinger species:
[...]

Oh, wow, this is cool!

There's also a significant variation in different populations. Turkish, having the highest rate of absence (26.6%) and Black (3%) the lowest. There are even some pretty big differences regionally -- only 1.5% of black people in Zimbabwe are missing it. Even wilder, with Indians, there are more people who have it only missing in one arm, than there are who have it missing in both.

Thank you for sharing this.

[honorentheos]

Theists like to answer the mystery of abiogenisis with an even bigger mystery. God of the gaps is narrowed by the progress of science despite the roadblocks religion has erected in the past. Germ theory deposed of evil spirits. Meteorology relieved Thor of his duty. As far as the predictive powers of evolution my first goto would be Tiktallik but Oxford Press casts doubt on this.

Chapter 4 considers a possible case from contemporary science: the theory of evolution and the predictive success of the Tiktaalik ‘missing link’ fossil in 2004. This predictive success seems more impressive than the Meckel case, and scientists initially expressed their enthusiasm for the discovery, indicating that they considered it evidentially very significant. However, the closer one looks the less evidentially significant it appears to be

Then I recalled a book I read ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny which reminded me of how science tends to self correct. This article in nature describes some arguably successful novel predictions as well as the difficulty surrounding the methodol. https://www.nature.com/articles/s414 ... 437-x Thanks physics guy!

It's funny that the first example that came to my mind was modeling genetic drift in isolated populations. But I didn't think it would be particularly impressive to someone expecting the predictive power of physics. So I opted for an example from paleontology. Interesting article.

[Kishkumen]

Theists who insist that intelligent design or creationism must be taught in the schools have a very poor grasp of theology. If I believe that things exist only because God made it possible, does that mean I have to imagine him arranging the rocks in the Garden of Eden or splicing DNA? I mean, what kind of ludicrous deity needs to be written into the cartoon-like narratives that these people must be imagining? I would say that anything in the way of ID or creationist accounts these folks come up with is bound to be practically blasphemous in its inadequacy and vulgarity. The role of God in existence is sublime to the point that it can best be grasped by letting science do its thing while keeping God as far out of the weak "answers" as possible. I say one can see the hint of God's place in the math and the geometry. Try to go further than that at your own peril.

Now, if you say there is no God involved, fine enough. I just don't see the need to write in God in a way that is frankly going to blow up in the IDist or creationist's face.

[Res Ipsa]

As to MG 2.0's claim that Meyer is just expressing another valid scientific "worldview" of science, here's a review of his third book (Return of the God Hypothesis) from a biologist that shares Meyer's worldview. https://biologos.org/articles/return-of ... eflections

As the book winds down, Meyer puts the onus on solving all of the mysteries he describes back on science:

“To make their case for the adequacy of a strictly materialistic approach to explanation in science and philosophy, defenders of this approach must first show that “gaps” in our knowledge of the materialistic causes of key events in the history of life and the universe can be filled with knowledge of an actual materialistic process capable of producing the events in question. (p. 613).”

This is an intriguing statement since this is the very thing the scientists always try to do—seek to fill in a knowledge-gap without simply declaring it miraculous. As Christians we all agree that these are God’s processes, but Meyer thinks he has shown that the knowledge-gap related to the origin of the universe, life, and complex body forms require supernatural activity. This could conceivably be the case for one or all of these phenomena, but the problem with his conclusion (at least in biology), is that he has not accurately described the state of the science. It has progressed much further than he seems to realize, and it is most certainly too early to declare that the biology gaps cannot be explained through natural mechanisms and the best thing to do is to plug the miraculous activity of God into the gap.

This saddens me deeply because I share his view that natural laws describe the ongoing sustaining activity of God. And like him, I think that God sometimes works in other ways to accomplish God’s purpose. Our primary difference it seems to me is that he thinks he can identify where God’s regular law-like activity ends and where God’s not-so-law-like activity begins. It is here we part company.

[Res Ipsa]

Theists who insist that intelligent design or creationism must be taught in the schools have a very poor grasp of theology. If I believe that things exist only because God made it possible, does that mean I have to imagine him arranging the rocks in the Garden of Eden or splicing DNA? I mean, what kind of ludicrous deity needs to be written into the cartoon-like narratives that these people must be imagining? I would say that anything in the way of ID or creationist accounts these folks come up with is bound to be practically blasphemous in its inadequacy and vulgarity. The role of God in existence is sublime to the point that it can best be grasped by letting science do its thing while keeping God as far out of the weak "answers" as possible. I say one can see the hint of God's place in the math and the geometry. Try to go further than that at your own peril.

Now, if you say there is no God involved, fine enough. I just don't see the need to write in God in a way that is frankly going to blow up in the IDist or creationist's face.

Excellent point. Both are examples of bad science and bad theology.

[MG 2.0]

Theists who insist that intelligent design or creationism must be taught in the schools have a very poor grasp of theology. If I believe that things exist only because God made it possible, does that mean I have to imagine him arranging the rocks in the Garden of Eden or splicing DNA? I mean, what kind of ludicrous deity needs to be written into the cartoon-like narratives that these people must be imagining? I would say that anything in the way of ID or creationist accounts these folks come up with is bound to be practically blasphemous in its inadequacy and vulgarity. The role of God in existence is sublime to the point that it can best be grasped by letting science do its thing while keeping God as far out of the weak "answers" as possible. I say one can see the hint of God's place in the math and the geometry. Try to go further than that at your own peril.

Now, if you say there is no God involved, fine enough. I just don't see the need to write in God in a way that is frankly going to blow up in the IDist or creationist's face.

Excellent point. Both are examples of bad science and bad theology.

So what I’m hearing, correct me if I’m wrong, is that most folks here consider themselves to be Darwinists and would not be willing to sign on to this list:

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/ ... 2023-2.pdf

I’m assuming this list is legit even though put up by discovery.org.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Excellent point. Both are examples of bad science and bad theology.

So what I’m hearing, correct me if I’m wrong, is that most folks here consider themselves to be Darwinists and would not be willing to sign on to this list:

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/ ... 2023-2.pdf

I’m assuming this list is legit even though put up by discovery.org. ...

You just assumed, without checking what you were posting?

...The statement has been criticized for being misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings such as "Darwinism", which can refer specifically to natural selection or informally to evolution in general,[7] and presenting a straw man fallacy with its claim that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to account for the complexity of life, when standard evolutionary theory involves other factors such as gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift and endosymbiosis.[8][9]

Scientists and educators have noted that its signatories, who include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists, were a minuscule fraction of the numbers of scientists and engineers qualified to sign it.[8]

Intelligent design has failed to produce scientific research, and been rejected by the scientific community,[8] including many leading scientific organizations.[10][11]

The statement in the document has also been criticized as being phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[7]

The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scien ... _Darwinism