10 ms·

Evolution is simply not sufficient. Dr. David Gelertner, a CS professor from Yale, penned an essay in May that lays out the high level argument against Darwin/E

Evolution is simply not sufficient. Dr. David Gelertner, a CS professor from Yale, penned an essay in May that lays out the high level argument against Darwin/Evolution, including references to background material. https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/ https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

the_af 7y ago
Ugh, no. Intelligent Design strikes again I see. Almost everything in that article is wrong (and also, the same tired pseudoscientific arguments), starting from the fact he claims "Darwinism" is a "credo". Also, Stephen Meyer is not brilliant and he is a quack. Also, a Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution. Or rather, his opinion is as informed as yours or mine, i.e. not very.
- barking 7y ago
  Sometimes it's no harm to have eyes from outside a discipline have a look at things.
  - the_af 7y ago
    But this guy mostly took a look at things from widely discredited and dishonest Intelligent Design and Creationist sources (every single person he mentions in his article). ID organizations like the Discovery Institute (of which he quotes people related to) is known to be fundamentally dishonest in trying to hide religious beliefs and pass them as science. So it's fundamentally dishonest. If this CS professor said "I'm a conservative religious guy [as is the case], I fundamentally believe in Creationism and mainstream science gets in the way of my beliefs" it'd be one thing. We could safely disregard his beliefs in evolution while acknowledging he was honest about choosing his religious beliefs over current science. It should be noted that another lie of Intelligent Design is that it constantly re-invents itself as the "new thing" but it's as old as the science of evolution. It's essentially Creationism wrapped in new language, but even in this guise it's pretty old. It has been discredited again, and again, and again. For someone "outside a discipline" to be worth paying attention to, he/she must: - Accurately describe the current state of the art in said discipline, and explain why they chose to pursue a line of thought at odds with it. - Take pains not to misrepresent the field they are talking about, and accurately address current beliefs and not outdated views. They must not engage in demolishing strawmen. - Explain how their current expertise relate to the field they are talking about. - Be honest about their intentions. If it's about religion, they should say so upfront, so people interested about science can decide whether they find religious arguments relevant. - Be honest about how they represent the fringe views purportedly backing their own opinion. For example, he claims "Stephen Meyer demolished Darwinism", but Meyer did nothing of the sort -- he is widely thought of as a fringe creationist quack, with no scientific reputation at all within the field of biology. He could instead have argued "Stephen Meyer, contrary to mainstream scientific thought, argues that [something]" instead of saying he "demolished" something (which a cursory search would reveal he didn't). This is a huge red flag.
    - lurquer 7y ago
      Let me get this straight... a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. Your response: "Almost everything in that article is wrong " "pseudoscientific arguments" "Stephen Meyer is not brilliant and he is a quack" " Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution" "widely discredited and dishonest " "known to be fundamentally dishonest" "So it's fundamentally dishonest." "another lie" "fringe views" "fringe creationist quack" In short, you've proved his point. Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged.
      - the_af 7y ago
        > a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. All of this is wrong. A noteworthy CS professor has zero relevance in a discussion about evolution or biology, particularly when he quotes people who aren't notable in the relevant field and tries to "demolish" strawmen. The word "demolish" is itself a huge red flag. The sources he quoted are creationist crackpots linked to the Discovery Institute, a notoriously dishonest organization who disguises religion as science. It is a mistake for the scientific community to engage with crackpots. > Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged. No, calling crackpots crackpots -- the mainstream consensus -- won't get me flagged. A big indicator of quackery is a persecution complex ("everyone is against me because of dogma", "they want to suppress dissenting views"). I think it's even in Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Sometimes people will call someone a crackpot because they've heard their arguments again and again, debunked them, and still that person insists, with a heavy dose of "the world is conspiring against me". It's ok to call that person a crackpot. One last thing: in the US the term "Darwinism" (which the article uses) is almost always used by Creationists, and in a pejorative way. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses): "The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism. For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism? (1874). However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief."
msla 7y ago
This refutes your position utterly by proving it isn't a scientific one but, instead, a political dogma: https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists > For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down. > The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

the_af 7y ago

Ugh, no. Intelligent Design strikes again I see. Almost everything in that article is wrong (and also, the same tired pseudoscientific arguments), starting from the fact he claims "Darwinism" is a "credo". Also, Stephen Meyer is not brilliant and he is a quack. Also, a Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution. Or rather, his opinion is as informed as yours or mine, i.e. not very.

barking 7y ago
Sometimes it's no harm to have eyes from outside a discipline have a look at things.
- the_af 7y ago
  But this guy mostly took a look at things from widely discredited and dishonest Intelligent Design and Creationist sources (every single person he mentions in his article). ID organizations like the Discovery Institute (of which he quotes people related to) is known to be fundamentally dishonest in trying to hide religious beliefs and pass them as science. So it's fundamentally dishonest. If this CS professor said "I'm a conservative religious guy [as is the case], I fundamentally believe in Creationism and mainstream science gets in the way of my beliefs" it'd be one thing. We could safely disregard his beliefs in evolution while acknowledging he was honest about choosing his religious beliefs over current science. It should be noted that another lie of Intelligent Design is that it constantly re-invents itself as the "new thing" but it's as old as the science of evolution. It's essentially Creationism wrapped in new language, but even in this guise it's pretty old. It has been discredited again, and again, and again. For someone "outside a discipline" to be worth paying attention to, he/she must: - Accurately describe the current state of the art in said discipline, and explain why they chose to pursue a line of thought at odds with it. - Take pains not to misrepresent the field they are talking about, and accurately address current beliefs and not outdated views. They must not engage in demolishing strawmen. - Explain how their current expertise relate to the field they are talking about. - Be honest about their intentions. If it's about religion, they should say so upfront, so people interested about science can decide whether they find religious arguments relevant. - Be honest about how they represent the fringe views purportedly backing their own opinion. For example, he claims "Stephen Meyer demolished Darwinism", but Meyer did nothing of the sort -- he is widely thought of as a fringe creationist quack, with no scientific reputation at all within the field of biology. He could instead have argued "Stephen Meyer, contrary to mainstream scientific thought, argues that [something]" instead of saying he "demolished" something (which a cursory search would reveal he didn't). This is a huge red flag.
  - lurquer 7y ago
    Let me get this straight... a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. Your response: "Almost everything in that article is wrong " "pseudoscientific arguments" "Stephen Meyer is not brilliant and he is a quack" " Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution" "widely discredited and dishonest " "known to be fundamentally dishonest" "So it's fundamentally dishonest." "another lie" "fringe views" "fringe creationist quack" In short, you've proved his point. Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged.
    - the_af 7y ago
      > a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. All of this is wrong. A noteworthy CS professor has zero relevance in a discussion about evolution or biology, particularly when he quotes people who aren't notable in the relevant field and tries to "demolish" strawmen. The word "demolish" is itself a huge red flag. The sources he quoted are creationist crackpots linked to the Discovery Institute, a notoriously dishonest organization who disguises religion as science. It is a mistake for the scientific community to engage with crackpots. > Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged. No, calling crackpots crackpots -- the mainstream consensus -- won't get me flagged. A big indicator of quackery is a persecution complex ("everyone is against me because of dogma", "they want to suppress dissenting views"). I think it's even in Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Sometimes people will call someone a crackpot because they've heard their arguments again and again, debunked them, and still that person insists, with a heavy dose of "the world is conspiring against me". It's ok to call that person a crackpot. One last thing: in the US the term "Darwinism" (which the article uses) is almost always used by Creationists, and in a pejorative way. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses): "The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism. For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism? (1874). However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief."

msla 7y ago

This refutes your position utterly by proving it isn't a scientific one but, instead, a political dogma: https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists > For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down. > The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!