The meaning of evidence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Sherlock Holmes

The meaning of evidence

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

This thread is to discuss the meaning of the term "evidence" particularly with respect to claims made by evolution advocates.

The reason I started this thread is that I often see - what I regard as - a conflation of consistent with and evidence for. If we are to make reasonable inferences and maintain objectivity and avoid making assumption unwittingly then the more precisely we define "evidence" the better I think.

The biggest risk here is to imply that some observation P is evidence for X and only X, rather than evidence for X and Y or Z. Unless we are on our guard we can informally exclude reasonable possibilities Y and Z and so on. Now the observation P might well be evidence for X and only X, but unless that is soundly established we simply can't assume that.

If we mistakenly regard P as evidence for X and only X then we fall into the trap of believing that P can only be observed if X was the cause.

This is exemplified by an analogy I recently put together that I think warrants its own thread, so here it is:


Consider this jigsaw

Image


None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we already believed for some reason or other, that they must overlap and we only had twenty random pieces and never see the rest, we could make up a jigsaw (theory) where we "fill in the blanks" so to speak and "show" that we sometimes have overlapping circles.

We'd be absolutely right too in saying the twenty pieces were consistent with an image that has overlapping circles, but we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles, because as we know, none of the circles actually do overlap.

So do you agree or not, there's a difference between observations that are evidence for some hypothesis vs consistent with some hypothesis and we should always be careful and make this distinction clear in our arguments?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #81

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:04 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:47 pm Whenever I hear about "gaps in the fossil record", I (having first learned biology in the early 1960s) immediately consider what was in evidence then, and what is in evidence now. When I started out, we lacked transitional forms for:

dinosaurs/birds
early hominids/modern humans
early anasids/turtles
wasps/ants
roaches/termites
ungulates/whales
fish/tetrapods
salamanders/frogs
reptiles/mammals
primitive plants/flowering plants
basal carnivores/canids
primitive procaviids/elephants

Today, we have all of those and many more. Basing one's argument on what is not yet known, is very faulty thinking.
So getting back on track...
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:29 pm The discontinuity is best exemplified IMHO by the Cambrian explosion,
The existence of complex forms spanning the Ediacaran/Cambrian divide put an end to that claim. It isn't the only period that saw extinction of many lines of organisms and the appearance of others.
of course this is ultimately subjective
The existence of all those transitionals is not subjective.

People who are invested in denying evolution naturally object to the fossil record, which as even honest and knowledgeable creationists admit to be in accord with overall expectations.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has beenconfirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumedancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level
and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

I think we'd all do well to accept that this is an objective fact, as Dr. Wise does. If the reality conflicts with a doctrine, perhaps it's a clue to revise the doctrine. Dr. Wise goes on and discusses some possible ways that creationists might be able to explain the large number of transitionals, including the Cambrian examples. He admits an ongoing problem in resolving these facts, but he has sufficient faith that he does not deny them.

Maybe you should work on that, as he and others are doing.
I guess we see the data in different ways, we each see what we want to see, you see lots of fossils that seem to be consistent with evolutionary expectations but I see huge gaps, disparities and discontinuities that defy explanation.
The Cambrian and Precambrian fossils from southern China have rendered the mystery associated with the Cambrian explosion more acute in other ways as well. First, the fossil finds in southern China coupled with advances in radiometric dating techniques applied to other Cambrian-era strata have allowed scientists to reassess the duration of the Cambrian explosion. As the name implies, the fossils documenting the Cambrian explosion appear within a relatively narrow slice of geologic time. Until the early 1990s, most paleontologists thought the Cambrian period began 570 million and ended 510 million years ago, with the Cambrian explosion of novel animal forms occurring within a 20-to 40-million-year window during the lower Cambrian period. Two developments have led paleontologists and geochronologists to revise those estimates downward. First, in 1993, radiometric dating of zircon crystals from formations just above and below Cambrian strata in Siberia allowed for a precise redating of Cambrian strata. Radiometric analyses of these crystals fixed the start of the Cambrian period at 544 million years ago, 58 and the beginning of the Cambrian explosion itself to about 530 million years ago (see Fig. 3.8). These studies also suggested that the explosion of the novel Cambrian animal forms occurred within a window of geologic time much shorter than previously believed, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main “period of exponential increase of diversification” lasting only 5 to 6 million years.
Some geologists or evolutionary biologists dispute these numbers, but they do so by redefining the Cambrian explosion as a series of separate events rather than using the term to refer to the main radiation of new body plans in the lower Cambrian. In 2009, I participated in a debate in which one of my opponents, paleontologist Donald Prothero, from Occidental College, used this common rhetorical strategy to minimize the severity of the Cambrian mystery. In his opening statement, he claimed that the Cambrian explosion actually took place over an 80-million-year period of time and that consequently those who cited the Cambrian as a challenge to the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian theory were mistaken. As I was listening to his opening statement, I consulted his textbook to see how he had derived his 80-million-year figure. Sure enough, he had included in the Cambrian explosion three separate pulses of new innovation or diversification, including the origin of a group of late Precambrian organisms called the Ediacaran or Vendian fauna. He also included not only the origin of the animal body plans in the lower Cambrian, but also the subsequent minor diversification (variations on those basic architectural themes) that occurred in the upper Cambrian. He included, for example, not just the appearance of the first trilobites, which occurred suddenly in the lower Cambrian, but also the origin of a variety of different trilobite species later from the upper Cambrian. In my response to Prothero, I noted that he was, of course, free to redefine the term “Cambrian explosion” any way he liked, but that by using the term to describe several separate explosions (of different kinds), he had done nothing to diminish the difficulty of explaining the origin of the first explosive appearance of the Cambrian animals with their unique body plans and complex anatomical features. Beyond this, as we’ll see in the next chapter, the Vendian organisms may not have been animals at all, and they bear little resemblance to any of the animals that arise in the Cambrian. We’ll also see that most, if not all, 61 of these organisms actually went extinct well before the origin of the animals that first appear in the lower Cambrian and so they do little to minimize the problem of the explosive origin of animals.
I think we'd all do well to regard these facts as pertinent as Dr. Meyers does.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #82

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:09 pm of course this is ultimately subjective
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:47 pm The existence of all those transitionals is not subjective.

People who are invested in denying evolution naturally object to the fossil record, which as even honest and knowledgeable creationists admit to be in accord with overall expectations.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has beenconfirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumedancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level
and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

I think we'd all do well to accept that this is an objective fact, as Dr. Wise does. If the reality conflicts with a doctrine, perhaps it's a clue to revise the doctrine. Dr. Wise goes on and discusses some possible ways that creationists might be able to explain the large number of transitionals, including the Cambrian examples. He admits an ongoing problem in resolving these facts, but he has sufficient faith that he does not deny them.

Maybe you should work on that, as he and others are doing.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:09 pm I guess we see the data in different ways, we each see what we want to see, you see lots of fossils that seem to be consistent with evolutionary expectations but I see huge gaps, disparities and discontinuities that defy explanation.
The point is that even YE creationists who actually know the fossil record openly admit that the evidence is "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And those who do not, such as philosopher Stephen Meyers, don't see it.

Which really isn't surprising, is it?
Last edited by The Barbarian on Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #83

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:02 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:56 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:41 pm The same goes for me, if you're genuinely interested in discussing the absence of fossil evidence just reach out.
Noted.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:33 pm Are you expecting complete fossil records for pre-Cambrian/Cambrian-era taxa?
No.
Then I have to wonder how a discontinuous record would ever be able to show a continuous, smooth process even when that's what actually happened.
Exactly all we have are interpretations colored by one's prevailing beliefs.
And what "belief" do you think paleontologists and evolutionary biologists across the globe have shared for the last 100 years?
I care not to speculate but I'm sure they have beliefs.
Noted.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #84

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:08 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:43 pm I would agree about the evolution interpretation and once did, except I can see now, there's insufficient evidence in the case of the Cambrian and that absence of evidence is itself inexplicable. I believe the fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, but the punctuated nature is a problem that's persisted since Darwin - IMHO.
I don't understand. If it's reasonable to assume that evolution produced the species we see in the fossil record during non-Cambrian times, why isn't it equally reasonable to do the same for the Cambrian? Also, do you agree it's reasonable to assume the species we see in pre-Cambrian strata came about via evolution?
You're assuming that uniformitarianism implies evolution but they are distinct concepts.
Only in the same sense that uniformitarianism and volcanism are distinct concepts, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #85

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:19 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:08 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:43 pm I would agree about the evolution interpretation and once did, except I can see now, there's insufficient evidence in the case of the Cambrian and that absence of evidence is itself inexplicable. I believe the fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, but the punctuated nature is a problem that's persisted since Darwin - IMHO.
I don't understand. If it's reasonable to assume that evolution produced the species we see in the fossil record during non-Cambrian times, why isn't it equally reasonable to do the same for the Cambrian? Also, do you agree it's reasonable to assume the species we see in pre-Cambrian strata came about via evolution?
You're assuming that uniformitarianism implies evolution but they are distinct concepts.
Only in the same sense that uniformitarianism and volcanism are distinct concepts, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution, the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #86

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:24 pm The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution
Only if you also deny that evolution occurs today.
the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.
Uniformitarianism holds that the same processes we see going on around us today also occurred in the past. We see evolution going on around us today, even to the point of generating new species. Therefore when we see new species appear in the fossil record, it's reasonable under uniformitarianism to assume that they too came about via evolution.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #87

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:24 pm The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution
Only if you also deny that evolution occurs today.
the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.
Uniformitarianism holds that the same processes we see going on around us today also occurred in the past. We see evolution going on around us today, even to the point of generating new species. Therefore when we see new species appear in the fossil record, it's reasonable under uniformitarianism to assume that they too came about via evolution.
Sure this would be true if evolution of ever increasingly complex life were a reality but I see no evidence for that. What we see today is not bacteria in a lab becoming worms for example, you believe with all your heart that this is possible and I understand it seems feasible when taken at face value but there's no evidence even the fossil record flies in the face of the belief, this is how I see things anyway. Insisting that observations made over a few years can serve as proof that extrapolations of this can take place over tens of millions of years is not scientifically testable.

How can you prove that a colony of bacteria will ever evolve into worms or jellyfish? sure you can argue it will, you can argue that it did in the past, you can extrapolate and so on but all you have are imperfectly understood processes whose long term behavior cannot be known.

Have you never heard of tin whiskers?

A totally unanticipated metallurgical phenomenon that plagued electronics once, due to solder with tin in it. These "whiskers" just sprouted inexplicably like grass from the inner surfaces of transistors destroying satellite electronics and military kit.

Nobody ever had any idea that a simple inorganic element like tin could behave this way, and here you are assuming all sorts of stuff about how organic chemistry behaves over millions of years! Until these were encountered the possibility never crossed anyone's mind, unforeseen consequences - why do you think biochemistry has no unforeseen consequences like this?

I'll tell you, faith, belief, that's all you have you no more know how a bacterial colony will look in a million years than the metallurgists knew that tin can sometimes grow like grass!

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #88

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:09 pm I think we'd all do well to regard these facts as pertinent as Dr. Meyers does.
Meyers has PhDs in History and Philosophy of Science. Hardly the guy we wanna trust when it comes to such areas as paleontology and biology.

As a member of the Discovery Institute, his credibility in science is questionable at best.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #89

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:08 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:09 pm I think we'd all do well to regard these facts as pertinent as Dr. Meyers does.
Meyers has PhDs in History and Philosophy of Science. Hardly the guy we wanna trust when it comes to such areas as paleontology and biology.

As a member of the Discovery Institute, his credibility in science is questionable at best.
Not according to the reviews of his book on this very subject:
Stephen Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization — bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog — and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.
-Dr. George Church
Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, and author of Regenesis

Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life—the rapid efflorescence of complex body plans written in the fossils of the Burgess Shale . . . No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged, and discussed.
-Dr. Scott Turner, Professor of Biology, State University of New York, author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself

Stephen Meyer elegantly explains why the sudden appearance of animal forms in the Cambrian period gave Darwin pause. He also demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level. With mathematical precision, he shows why the neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot produce the genetic information and novel proteins — or systems for regulating their expression — that are required to build new animals. An excellent book and a must read for anyone who wants to gain understanding of the very real—though often unreported—scientific challenges facing neo-Darwinism.
-Dr. Russell Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia

Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion. An engaging investigation of the origin of animal life and a compelling case for intelligent design.
Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.
-Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

With the publication of “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, Darwin acknowledged that there wasn’t an adequate explanation for the pattern in the fossil record in which a wide diversity of animal life suddenly appeared in the Cambrian geological period. His doubt about the ‘Cambrian explosion’ centered on the wide range of body forms, the missing fossil intermediates and the lack of evidence for antecedents. Meyer’s book examines the implications of the ‘Cambrian explosion.’ It is a fascinating story and analysis of Darwin’s doubt about the fossil record and the debate that has ensued. It is a tour de force…This book is well informed, carefully researched, up-to-date and powerfully argued. Its value is that it confronts Darwin’s doubt and deals with the assumptions of Neo-Darwinism. This book is much needed and I recommend it to students of all levels, to professionals and to laypeople.
-Dr. Norman C. Nevin, OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen’s University, Belfast

Darwin’s Doubt is another excellent book by Stephen Meyer. I particularly like his refutation of the concept of self-assembly of biological systems. The book explains the difference between specified complexity and order and shows that natural forces cannot generate the kind of complexity we see in living systems. I know from my personal work in the Systems Centre at Bristol University that complex systems do not create themselves but require an intelligent designer. Stephen Meyer has clearly listened to the arguments of those who are sceptical about intelligent design and has addressed them thoroughly. It is really important that Darwinists read this book carefully and give a response.
-Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University

I spend my life reading science books. I’ve ready many hundreds of them over the years, and in my judgment Darwin’s Doubt is the best science book ever written. It is a magnificent work, a true masterpiece that will be read for hundreds of years. ~
George Gilder, Technologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling author

Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I’ve read . . . This book—and his body of work—challenges scientism with real science and excites in me the hope that the origins-of-life debate will soon be largely free of the ideology that has long colored it . . . a wonderful, most compelling read.
-Dean Koontz, New York Times bestselling author

Dr. Meyer makes it clear that these well-documented facts of paleontology pose a serious challenge to Darwin’s theory, the view that has held sway in biology (and well beyond) for nearly 150 years. The issue on the table is not now, nor has it ever been, the fact of evolution (change over time); the issue has always been the mechanism of evolution – is it blind and undirected or is it under the control of an intelligence that had a goal in mind? That’s the nub of the question, and in Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for the latter.
-Dr. William S. Harris, Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota

Dr Meyer has written a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis on the massive scientific evidence revealing the total failure of the neo-Darwinian explanation for life’s history. Darwin’s Doubt is important, clearly written with sound arguments, excellent illustrations and examples that make the topic easily understandable even for non-specialists…Randomness as a source for biological innovations is a present day paradigm and its supporters have too much at stake to give it up easily. The vague claims of Darwinian evolution refer to historical developments and as such are hard to prove. However, molecular biology has given us tools to experimentally test its claims. As so convincingly shown by Dr Meyer the experimental evidence refers to intelligence – not randomness.
-Dr Matti Leisola, Professor, bioprocess engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity

It is no secret among professionals that recent findings by developmental and molecular biologists are challenging current Darwinian theories of evolution. Meyer has condensed the research, made it accessible to the non-specialist and put it in the context of the debate over the origins of biological novelty. He makes a case for intelligent design as the only currently viable scientific theory for the origin of biological novelty, as found in the explosion of new species during the Cambrian geologic era. Meyer’s challenge to the dominant paradigm of naturalism will no doubt be strongly resisted by those committed to a materialist world view, but provide food for refection for those who are searching for truth.
-Dr. Donald L. Ewert, Molecular Biologist, Associate Member (retired), Wistar Institute

Stephen C. Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt” is a truly remarkable book. Within its 413 pages of text are four tightly woven interrelated arguments. Using 753 references, he presents evidence associated with the serious weaknesses of materialistic theories of biological evolution, and positive evidence for the theory of intelligent design…Meyer’s attack is really against what is called “macroevolution” (large scale population change). Michael Behe (in his “Edge of Evolution”) points out that there is abundant evidence for “microevolution” (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn’t exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to “just-so-stories”. This leaves macroevolution sitting atop a boundary (or wall) with an outlook no better that that of Humpty Dumpty.
-Dr. Mark C. Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach

A great book on the origin of animal life and crises of Darwin evolution; very clear, factual, comprehensive, logical, and informative. An enjoyable reading for both non-expert and expert.
-Dr. Change Tan, Molecular biologist/developmental biologist, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia

Darwinists keep two sets of books. The first set is the real record within the peer-reviewed literature that discusses why the mechanism of the origin of life and the mode and tempo speciation are more baffling today than they were two centuries ago. The second set of books is the popular literature that promotes to the public a soothing, fanciful narrative claiming that the grand history of life is fully explained with only minor but exciting details left to be filled in. Steven Meyer gives an insightful and thoughtful treatment to this state of affairs, auditing the second set of books using the data found in the first. Justice Louis Brandies taught us that, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” and Dr. Meyer lets the sun shine in.
-Dr. Stephen A. Batzer, P.E., forensic engineer

Buckle your seat belts and brace yourself for tremors from the world of science. The evolution debate is about to undergo a major shakeup, and the world is beginning to listen in. Steve Meyer’s book is a much anticipated bombshell that details the swarm of problems of Darwinian evolution that come from Cambrian fossils. It also clearly presents the case for intelligent design. Ask yourself: how often does a book of this kind receive a warm welcome from leading geneticists and paleontologists? Never, until now! Darwin’s Doubt has been praised by Dr. George Church, a geneticist at Harvard University; by Dr. Mark McMenamin, a Cambrian fossil specialist at Mt. Holyoke College, and by Dr. Scott Turner, an evolutionary theorist at the State University of New York. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Charles Darwin’s own “Origin of Species” launched a revolution in 1859 whose scientific, cultural and spiritual effects are still with us. Now a new revolution is on the horizon.
-Dr. Tom Woodward, Research Professor, Trinity College, Tampa Bay Author, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design

Stephen C. Meyer is brilliant and his latest book, Darwin’s Doubt is a must read.
-David Limbaugh
Syndicated columnist and author

Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt, is a fascinating and rigorous study demonstrating not only that biologists and paleontologists do not have an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, but that there is an alternative view that makes more sense. Those who are open to the possibility of Intelligent Design will find a treasure trove of supporting evidence for their view in this book. Those who oppose Intelligent Design owe it to themselves to read this book to understand Meyer’s position and to grapple with his arguments.
-Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of From Darwin to Hitler

Meyer is a talented writer with an easygoing voice who has blended interesting history with clear explanations in what may come to be seen as a classic presentation of this most fundamental of all debates.
-Terry Scambray
New Oxford Review
But since you never even read the book you'd know nothing of this and anyway you'll likely dismiss all these scientists for one reason or another, you always do, they're probably not real scientists anyway!

Meyer has likely accumulated an in-depth highly specialized knowledge of this area of paleontology over the years greater than some of the paleontologists who dismiss him, the research required for this book must have been considerable, easily dwarfing a PhD thesis.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #90

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:20 pm But since you never even read the book you'd know nothing of this and anyway you'll likely dismiss all these scientists for one reason or another, you always do, they're probably not real scientists anyway!
One paleontologist supports your philosopher's take on paleontology? No, actually, he doesn't.

Mark McMenamin has repeatedly criticized conventional Neodarwinian theory as inadequate to the task of explaining the evolutionary process. Joining with Lynn Margulis and the Russian symbiogeneticists, McMenamin has argued that symbiogenesis theory is important as one means of addressing the gap in our understanding of macroevolutionary change in conventional Neodarwinian terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McMenamin

Margulis puts symbiosis forward as being much more important in evolution than most biologists would accept. Clearly, she's right about a lot of things. And McMenamin seems to agree with her. But he obviously rejects Meyer's interpretations. So do most Christians in science:

Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book, saying it illustrates why he does not support the intelligent design movement.[64] Falk is critical of Meyer's declaration of scientists being wrong, such as Michael Lynch about genetic drift, without Meyer having done any experiment or calculation to disprove Lynch's assertion. Falk writes, "the book is supposed to be a science book and the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement – not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement", but concludes "If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public.

Falk is precisely right. Meyer, like most of the other Fellows of the Discovery Institute are primarily making religious/philosophical positions, to be disguised as science. The inadvertent leaking of the Wedge Document makes this clear:

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document

In spite of this, ID founder Phillip Johnson publicly says that the "designer" might be a "space alien."

Meyer argues throughout the book that his theory about the origin of information is scientific, not religious. He makes it clear that he wants it to be considered on its scientific merits alone. I am comfortable with this. Let it be evaluated on the basis of its science. Like him, I believe in intelligent design. However, I am also a scientist. So I need to evaluate this book in the way that he calls all of us to do, as a work of science. I must consider whether this philosopher, this Christian brother, this best-selling author, and this leading debater has been successful at analyzing the data of the world’s leading scientists—people who have given their careers full time for many years to asking (and answering) very sophisticated questions about whether material causes have created information.

There is no question that large amounts information have been created by materialistic forces over the past several hundred million years. Meyer dismisses this without discussing it. What about at the very beginning, 3.5 billion years ago? Everyone doing the science, Meyer notwithstanding, would say the jury is still out. There are some very elegant feasibility experiments going on at the present time. However, it is far too early for a philosopher to jump into the fray and declare no further progress will be made and that this science is now dead. If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be.

https://biologos.org/articles/signature-in-the-cell

Meyer's views are generally rejected even by biologists in the Discovery Institute:

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

If this sounds like deism to you, no surprise. It seems like that to a lot of people.

Locked