Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In the Darwin Debate, How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design?
Evolution News and Views ^ | January 19, 2015 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 01/20/2015 5:45:16 AM PST by Heartlander

In the Darwin Debate, How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design?

Casey Luskin January 19, 2015 4:36 PM | Permalink

A student emails me to ask how long it will be before the "tide turns from Darwinism to ID." He follows the debate over intelligent design and is aware that the Darwin lobby's rhetoric typically fails to address ID's actual arguments (which are scientific in nature), instead focusing on personal attacks or trying to claim ID is religion. This student feels it is obvious that ID has the upper hand in the argument, but wonders when the majority opinion will also recognize this.

I agree that in the long-term, the position of the anti-ID lobby is simply not sustainable. You can't keep claiming forever that ID is just "religion" or "politics" when the ID camp is producing legitimate science, and even non-ID scientists keep making discoveries that confirm the predictions of ID. Or I suppose you can keep claiming whatever you want, but it will become increasingly difficult to get people to believe you.

What are my reasons for optimism? One of the strongest signs is that in head-to-head debates over ID and Darwinism, the ID proponent generally wins hands down. In that respect, we've had many key intellectual victories in recent years, including:

I could list many more successes, as well as ways that we could be hoping for more and doing more, but the point is this: ID has had plenty of intellectual "wins" of late, and the future is bright. The problem is that much of the public isn't hearing about these wins for ID.

For the time being, ID critics control the microphone. They generally determine what students hear in the classroom, what the public reads in the media, and what scientists read in the journals. They can often prevent the public, students, and scientists from hearing the facts about ID. This has a major impact on the way many people perceive this debate because they can't make a fair evaluation when they are only hearing one side of the issue, dominated by spin and caricature. This is one of the biggest obstacles facing ID.

That's why a lot of our energy in the ID movement is devoted to "getting the word out," broadcasting the facts and correcting misinformation from our critics. ID blogs like Uncommon Descent and Evolution News & Views do a great job of this (if we do say so ourselves). There are other good sources out there as well.

The Summer Seminar on ID, organized by Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, has now graduated some 250 students, many of whom are going on to get PhDs and seed the next generation of scientists. There's a lot to look forward to.

Don't expect a revolution overnight. We are in this for the long haul, recognizing that it can take time for the truth to slip past the checkpoints that the Darwin lobby sets up to keep the public uninformed. In the end, though, I'm optimistic because the fundamentals of ID -- the science underlying the inference to design in nature -- are sound. The truth will win out, though it may tarry in doing so. Or to put it another way, the tide of ID is already well on its way in. We need to focus on telling people about it.



TOPICS: Education; Reference; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; evolution; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-199 next last
To: bray

What?


81 posted on 01/20/2015 2:42:52 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
PZ Myers - (sorry about the misspelling)
82 posted on 01/20/2015 3:16:15 PM PST by Heartlander (Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism. - Denyse OÂ’Leary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: bray
The oldest trick in the book, dodge and belittle since you know there is no answer.

I didn’t dodge anything. You used a metaphor to make fun of the idea that abiogenesis was separate from evolution. I used your same metaphor to show that even if they’re related, you don’t need to fully explain one before you can understand the other. Personally, I prefer the metapor that a pediatrician doesn’t need to fully understand conception and pregnancy in order to treat a child’s flu, but whatever. If you feel belittled by my using your own metaphor, you have only yourself to blame.

Besides, I’m happy to admit that when it comes to the origin of life, we really just don’t know. That doesn’t invalidate everything we do know about life once it exists, much as you’d like it to.

83 posted on 01/20/2015 3:20:04 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

No.

I misspelled it.

And I looked him up. A silly buffoon wannabe Dawkins.


84 posted on 01/20/2015 3:30:54 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Thank you.

“The above, well, not so much. It seems an abrupt shift in to philosophical polemic.”

No doubt. I’ve been quite infected by Twain and Mencken.


85 posted on 01/20/2015 3:34:51 PM PST by philoginist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
It appears that some traits just “come along” with other useful ones—
that would not fit in to Darwinian evolution theory which I believe favors gradual mutation to a form...not spontaneous new fully functional forms occurring....

That was Darwin’s insight, yes, but we now know a lot more than he did. It’s been suggested that some traits persist that are neutral because they’re genetically associated with other traits that are positive. For instance, the gene that gives light skin, an advantage in regions without much sunlight, might also increase the tendency to have blue eyes. The blue eyes themselves may not be helpful—they just “come along” with a trait that is.

None of that has anything to do with an animal sprouting wings.

86 posted on 01/20/2015 3:38:51 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I wouldn’t stake my life on that.

But what about the principle or theory of Biogenesis? Has that been debunked? If biogenesis was not true when life started, why can't we see cases of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis today?
87 posted on 01/20/2015 4:44:43 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Ok, so you Darwinists don’t know how life began, but it just magically began and then the theory exists. Do you even realize what a huge hole to your theory that is?

Name one transitory animal that shows an evolution from one species to another. You can’t even though there should be billions and billions of examples throughout the millions of years of earth.

It is a myth and a fraud to satisfy atheists that God does not exist.


88 posted on 01/20/2015 4:53:12 PM PST by bray (Sharpton is a murderer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: microgood
why can't we see cases of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis today?

How do you know we don’t? We’re talking about really tiny things like proteins and RNA strands—things not even to the level of single cells. There could be lots of those forming every day (and getting eaten immediately, perhaps)—how would we ever know?

89 posted on 01/20/2015 5:00:50 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: bray
Ok, so you Darwinists don’t know how life began, but it just magically began and then the theory exists. Do you even realize what a huge hole to your theory that is?

I realize that you’re incapable of grasping simple concepts. No one except creationists are claiming it began by “magic,” just that once it’s there, by whatever means, evolution proceeds. Really, it’s like you’re telling the person who invented the smallpox vaccine that there’s a huge hole in his theory because he can’t explain what causes the disease. Maybe he can't, but who cares? The vaccine still works.

Name one transitory animal that shows an evolution from one species to another. You can’t even though there should be billions and billions of examples throughout the millions of years of earth.

There are, but I’m not going to play that stupid game. You probably want something like a rabbit with wings or something else that evolution would never predict.

It is a myth and a fraud to satisfy atheists that God does not exist.

Most of us aren’t atheists, as I’m sure you’ve been told in the past.

90 posted on 01/20/2015 5:14:05 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I understand you think you are more evolved than us simple Christians, but how did life begin. Give us one example of one species evolving into another.

Early Darwinists claimed life began in the primordial soup that got hit with lightning and later found that the soup was too hot for life to exist as was the asteroid explanation so you decided to ignore it and just imagine a dog turning into a horse.

Truth is, evolution is a farmers theory that does not hold water. Cling to your way of proving God is a myth with your theory full of holes.

I do admire your faith, I certainly don't have that much.

91 posted on 01/20/2015 5:42:20 PM PST by bray (Sharpton is a murderer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

I’ll answer your question first:

“So do you believe in an ‘ultimate designer’ for life and the universe? “

No! It’s only my view and I’m only answering your question. I neither expect nor particularly desire for anyone to agree with it.

I’ll address a little bit of your argument just for the discussion’s sake.

“On a logical basis, if there was an infinite past to nature we would never reach ‘here and now.’”

What logic would that be? It would be interesting to see it put in the form of a syllogism. But accepting your premise, it would have to reach someplace, and since it has infinitely long to do it, that someplace can be anyplace, including here and now.

Your argument rests on the modern view of time as a thing. Time is actually only the relationship between motions, the other relationship being velocity. Time does not “progress,” or do anything else, anymore than velocity does.

I’m not sure what your point is by, “natural processes cannot create natural processes.” I think the meaning depends on what you mean by “create.” If you mean, for example, man as a natural being cannot create life (perhaps a living computer for example) I totally agree with you. If you mean one natural process cannot initiate another one, the birth of every animal disproves that.

Thank you for the comments.


92 posted on 01/20/2015 6:03:03 PM PST by philoginist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: bray
I understand you think you are more evolved than us simple Christians, but how did life begin.

Now you're just being silly. I don't think I'm more evolved than you, there's no dichotomy between me and Christians (though I'm not sure about "simple"), and I've already said we don't know how life began. You seem to think this is some big stumbling block for the Theory of Evolution, but you're simply wrong.

just imagine a dog turning into a horse.

...which no evolutionist claimed ever...

Cling to your way of proving God is a myth

...and which I have made no attempt to do. You're arguing with cartoons in your own head.

93 posted on 01/20/2015 7:52:27 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

So you cannot answer the question of where life began or the first mutation or any examples of one species evolving into another, but you know it’s true. I admire your infinite faith.


94 posted on 01/20/2015 9:06:47 PM PST by bray (Sharpton is a murderer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“For instance, the gene that gives light skin, an advantage in regions without much sunlight”

How is light skin an advantage in regions without much sunlight?

How was it determined that this is an advantage?


95 posted on 01/20/2015 9:16:40 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: bray

Faith has nothing to do with it. First of all, I know life began somehow, at some point—that’s obvious. So yes, I believe it’s true that life began. As for what happened after that: I’ve seen enough evidence of evolution (including evidence of multiple species sharing common ancestors, a somewhat more accurate phrase than yours) to have a high level of confidence in the theory. That’s all.


96 posted on 01/20/2015 9:19:08 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

“How is light skin an advantage in regions without much sunlight?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D


97 posted on 01/20/2015 9:22:08 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: bray

“Ok, so you Darwinists don’t know how life began, but it just magically began and then the theory exists. Do you even realize what a huge hole to your theory that is?”

Another big hole:

Evolutionary Theory doesn’t explain why a deck of cards consists of 52.


98 posted on 01/20/2015 9:23:41 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Interesting link in that it in no way stated or backed up your claim.


99 posted on 01/20/2015 9:35:15 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Multiple species carrying the same ancestor? What does that mean?


100 posted on 01/21/2015 5:48:43 AM PST by bray (Sharpton is a murderer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson