Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Gilder, Metaphysic (Derbyshire refutes another creationist)
National Review ^ | 7/13/2006 | John Derbyshire

Posted on 07/13/2006 3:18:03 PM PDT by curiosity

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-252 next last
To: curiosity
"The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance."

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges. Gilder's right.

21 posted on 07/13/2006 3:42:12 PM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
This is not even in his area of knowledge and it is a terrible article.

I thought it was quite good. And I don't consider myself ignorant in this area.

22 posted on 07/13/2006 3:42:22 PM PDT by DanDenDar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has

Please identify a piece of criticism of the theory of evolution that is worthy of an sympathetic, intelligent reading.

23 posted on 07/13/2006 3:46:15 PM PDT by DanDenDar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DanDenDar
I thought it was quite good. And I don't consider myself ignorant in this area.

What'd you think was the best part?

24 posted on 07/13/2006 3:46:49 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges. Gilder's right.

That relates directly to the nature of the challenges; when we hear "2nd law of thermodynamics" and "were you there?" and "its just a theory" for the 50th time, what response would you expect?

Bring science and you will be listened to. Bring junk science or creation "science" and you will be treated poorly. Why would you expect anything different?

25 posted on 07/13/2006 3:48:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Image hosting by Photobucket

Uncommon Dissent. If you’ve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.

There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.

Doubts About Darwin is a delightful chronicle of the ways a small group of doubters are reshaping the debate and bringing out the inadequacies of natural selection to the general public. Doubters and believers alike ought to read Doubts About Darwin. It has much to teach them.” – Murray Eden, professor emeritus, MIT.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Darwinian Fairytales. Philosopher David Stove concludes in his hilarious and razor-sharp inquiry that Darwin's theory of evolution is a ridiculous slander on human beings. But wait! Stove is no creationist nor a proponent of so-called intelligent design. He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin's great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history. But Stove also thinks that it is also one of the most overblown theories of science and gives a penetrating inventory of what he regards as the unbelievable claims of Darwinism. Darwinian Fairytales is a must-read book for people who want to really understand the issues behind the most hotly debated scientific controversy of our time.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professional—and often personal—"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.

In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.

Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)

Image hosting by Photobucket

What Darwin Didn’t Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Intelligent Design. "Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." This statement, quoted by William Dembski, is a way of summarizing intelligent design theory, which argues that it is possible to find evidence for design in the universe. The author of The Design Inference (a scholarly exploration of this topic published by Cambridge University Press) aims in this book to show the lay reader "how detecting design within the universe, and especially against the backdrop of biology and biochemistry, unseats naturalism"-- and above all Darwin's expulsion of design in his theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design is organized into three parts: the first part gives an introduction to design and shows how modernity--science in the last two centuries--has undermined our intuition of this truth. The second and central part of the book examines "the philosophical and scientific basis for intelligent design." The final part shows how "science and theology relate coherently and how intelligent design establishes the crucial link between the two." This suggests that Dembski is not simply rejecting Darwin and naturalism on fundamentalist or biblical grounds. While grounded in faith, he wishes to show how "God's design is accessible to scientific inquiry."

Image hosting by Photobucket

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician who has been an important theorist for the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to chew on. While most of the core arguments of this book will be familiar to readers of the ID literature, they are presented here in (if one may say so) a more highly evolved form: explanations are clearer, objections are borne more patiently, distinctions and concessions are artfully made. Without denying the theological and cultural implications of ID, Dembski is more concerned with ID's future as a scientific enterprise: a point where despite some successes the movement continues to struggle. The book's format makes for a clear read. Chapters can focus on a single issue and adopt an appropriate tone: basic questions get basic replies, pointed objections get forceful rejoinders, and technical questions allow Dembski to unleash a faculty for technical detail that can only be called impressive.

”It will not do for those to whom Dembski has issued his challenge to rely on their standing or authority within the scientific and academic establishments to wave him away. The truth is that the honor and integrity of science really are at stake.” – Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Joining the ranks of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, Cornelius G. Hunter gives us Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, the latest must-read installment of scholarship on human origins. Beginning with the provocative statement that "evolution is neither atheism in disguise nor is it merely science at work," Hunter denies evolution's claim to be pure science, beyond the "entanglements" of faith or belief. Ultimately, he shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution.

Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. Readers of history, science, philosophy, and theology will enjoy this honest telling of a complex and engrossing story.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Not By Chance. Physicist Lee M. Spetner's book has biologists and geneticists praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Often invoked as justification for unbelief, in this book modern science provides the basis for an unusual and provocative affirmation of religious faith. A professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware, Stephen Barr deploys his scientific expertise to challenge the dogmas of naturalistic materialism and to assert his belief that nothing explains the order of the universe better than divine design. To be sure, Barr recognizes that Darwin's work has swept away the arguments of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theologians, who traced the handiwork of God in birds, flowers, and seashells. But the old argument-from-design reemerges with new sophistication after Barr presses evolutionary theory for a plausible account of the origin of what quantum physics demands – that is, a conscious observer – and comes away with nothing but skepticism about the skeptics. Barr indeed relishes the irony of a skeptical logic of random chance that forces unbelievers who balk at one unobservable God to accept, on doctrinal faith, a myriad of unobservable worlds on which the matter-motion lottery has not produced the winning ticket of conscious intelligence. The absurdity grows even more palpable among astrophysicists who avoid acknowledging the human-friendly pattern in subatomic and cosmic architecture found in the observable universe only by theorizing the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes in which sovereign randomness has dictated other and more hostile architectures. Neither religiously sectarian nor technically daunting, this book invites the widest range of readers to ponder the deepest kind of questions.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

In the Beginning Was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature. Information is one of the most fundamental parts of our world, yet we don’t often think about it. This classic book demonstrates the importance of information to life of any kind. More to the point, it demonstrates the necessity of an Organizer and Originator of the information necessary for life. The author shows that the highly complex information present in DNA mitigates a non-intelligent beginning for life.

Werner Gitt has a doctorate in engineering, and has been a professor at the Federal Physics-Technology Institute in Braunschweig, Germany, since 1971.

26 posted on 07/13/2006 3:48:22 PM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I felt Derbyshire captured the ferment of activity in bioinformatics exactly. Gilder made the ridiculous assertion that biologists were ignorant of information theory. Derbyshire points out that in fact there is so much going on in bioinformatics that biologists are too busy to navel-gaze, the way physicists are prone to do.

Neither of them is fully biologically literate. What do they mean by 'modelling protein synthesis'? But Derbyshire is far more literate than Gilder, who committed a dozen solecisms in his silly article.

Not a bad piece by a layman, at all. To anyone who has argued with creationists for any lenght of time, his 'whack-a-mole' analogy is exactly right.

27 posted on 07/13/2006 3:56:33 PM PDT by DanDenDar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

So where's the original research?


28 posted on 07/13/2006 3:57:40 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

Well, that settles it! I have my summer reading for next year.

That is quite the list.


29 posted on 07/13/2006 3:57:54 PM PDT by Disambiguator (I'm not paranoid, just pragmatic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DanDenDar
I felt Derbyshire captured the ferment of activity in bioinformatics exactly.

Very interesting. I thought that that was the weakest because this ferevncy which is there (yes yes yes!!!) really has nothing to do with this crevo debate and is well beyond anything either side is talking about.

In reality the "ferment of activity" is being and will be very negative to traditional what can be called cannonical evolutionary theory. In other words it is wrong. This will allow anti-evolutionists to use these finding later to detract from evolution and the same argument will go on forever.

I bolded the key part.

30 posted on 07/13/2006 4:09:09 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

31 posted on 07/13/2006 4:18:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
And it's a typical response of the Darwinists to characterize creationists as slack-jawed idiots.

Based on some of the recent geology discussions, it's a tempting conclusion - but one I will resist making.

32 posted on 07/13/2006 4:19:13 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
In reality the "ferment of activity" is being and will be very negative to traditional what can be called cannonical evolutionary theory.

Copuld you please give an example of this. Be as specific as possible.

33 posted on 07/13/2006 4:22:27 PM PDT by DanDenDar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole.

And there's high probability this thread will illustrate this point.

34 posted on 07/13/2006 4:24:14 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the BANNED disruptive troll who was seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xJones

Thanks for the ping.


35 posted on 07/13/2006 4:25:44 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
This was an entertaining read. Derbyshire makes a few comic points about Gilder, but doesn't seem to be mean-spirited. While his intent was to respond to Gilder's article, he doesn't seem to wander very far beyond the single point, "show me the science." Being a lay person with slight familiarity with the debate, and leaning toward the creationist side, I'd like to hear a reasonable response to his challenge.

The single greatest point Derbyshire made, to me, was that after a century of debate, hell, after twenty years of debate, with all the modern tools of communication and research available, why hasn't the "truth" of creationism won more converts? If it is true, more than 1% of the people who devote their lives to scientific study should have signed on by now.

And I'm not buying the argument that the Darwinian Establishment has too much to lose. Not all of them. Most of them have the same values we do. And what about the young scientists who are still idealistic, those most prone to work on radical ideas that overthrow the established order? They should be signing on in droves.

As I said, I lean to the creationist side. But creationists who try to evade the rules of debate by taking the argument out of the sphere of science get what they have due. Free speech means that the merit of the speech is up for debate. If creationism is true, science will support it. I'd like to hear more about that science, if it exists, and less of the rhetoric from both sides that ultimately says nothing but, "Trust me, you're wrong. And you're an idiot."

36 posted on 07/13/2006 4:26:57 PM PDT by DC Bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I seem to have a mental flaw where if any article which I am reading which contains the words "materialism" or "metaphysics" I turn off completely and cannot read another word. I can stare at it all I want but nothing sinks in from that point on.


37 posted on 07/13/2006 4:27:10 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound

The single greatest point Derbyshire made, to me, was that after a century of debate, hell, after twenty years of debate, with all the modern tools of communication and research available, why hasn't the "truth" of creationism won more converts? If it is true, more than 1% of the people who devote their lives to scientific study should have signed on by now.

And a well made point it was. And so it bears repeating. Creationism isn't concerned with winning more converts, at least any beyond the age of about 15. It's concerned with loosing converts it made before they were about 15 and recruiting as many before that age as it can.

38 posted on 07/13/2006 4:49:08 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the BANNED disruptive troll who was seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Whack-A-Placemarker

39 posted on 07/13/2006 5:01:29 PM PDT by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; curiosity

So the researchers at DI should have tons of discoveries since they aren't hampered by ToE.


40 posted on 07/13/2006 5:03:51 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-252 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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