Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

[Roy]

But we all just voted him to be our official spokesperson.

Using an electoral college system?

[element771]

No. Definitely not. I'm saying that there is more and better and earlier-recognise evidence for evolution than for abiogenesis.

Sure..I would agree with that. A continual process versus a one off so to speak.

[element771]

Ok, I understand. I do not think all Christian apologists jump straight from natural theology to Christianity, though it does seem to be a common failing. I certainly don't judge all apologists by the technique of e.g. JohnMartin.

Cool

Thanks for clearing it up.

[Sparko]

Using an electoral college system?

No it was a flat vote.

[rogue06]

No. Definitely not. I'm saying that there is more and better and earlier-recognise evidence for evolution than for abiogenesis.

Biological evolution is one of the most robustly supported theories in all of science in part due to the incessant challenges to it.

[shunyadragon]

Biological evolution is one of the most robustly supported theories in all of science in part due to the incessant challenges to it.

Actually I avoid calling it a theory it is misleading. Evolution is more a science in and of itself.

[rogue06]

Actually I avoid calling it a theory it is misleading. Evolution is more a science in and of itself.

That goes to something that Stephen Jay Gould once wrote back in the 80s which I'll paraphrase: Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

It is a fact in that it takes place and has been observed and the theory is the best explanation for how it works.

[shunyadragon]

That goes to something that Stephen Jay Gould once wrote back in the 80s which I'll paraphrase: Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

It is a fact in that it takes place and has been observed and the theory is the best explanation for how it works.

I still the concept of 'fact and a theory' is misleading. The problem is the evolving knowledge of evolution changes over time and should not be considered a 'fact,' Indeed, there are many facts that when treated as the mountain of objective evidence to support the science of evolution. I believe there are many theories involved in the science of evolution.

[psstein]

Biological evolution is one of the most robustly supported theories in all of science in part due to the incessant challenges to it.

I wouldn't really call them challenges. There aren't significant scientific challenges to it, because creationism isn't science. The debates among biologists focus more upon the mechanism of evolution.

[rogue06]

I wouldn't really call them challenges. There aren't significant scientific challenges to it, because creationism isn't science. The debates among biologists focus more upon the mechanism of evolution.

Not all of the challenges have come from creationists.

[shunyadragon]

Not all of the challenges have come from creationists.

I have to disagree! There are no significant challenges to the science of evolution at all from within nor without science.

[rogue06]

I have to disagree! There are no significant challenges to the science of evolution at all from within nor without science.

Of course scientists have indeed been challenging the Theory of Evolution for quite some time. Early on, during the period known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism" there were things like neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis.

Following that have come a whole list of things including but not limited to:

• When Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

• When Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

• When Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

• When Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

• When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

• When Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977

These are all examples of controversial theories when they came out as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis (which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory and was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s).

[shunyadragon]

Of course scientists have indeed been challenging the Theory of Evolution for quite some time. Early on, during the period known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism" there were things like neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis.

'Early on' is ancient history as far as science is concerned, and not really relevant to any serious challenge to the science of evolution from within science in recent history.

Following that have come a whole list of things including but not limited to:

• When Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

• When Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

• When Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

• When Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

• When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

• When Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977

These are all examples of controversial theories when they came out as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis (which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory and was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s).

Your conflating 'challenges to the science of evolution' with scientists proposing different mechanisms and processes 'within' the science of evolution. Over time these differences are worked out in the process of ongoing research and evolving knowledge, and much of what you cite in recent history do not represent a serious challenge among scientists against the theory of evolution, and have since been resolved. Controversy and differences within science, like cosmology and physics, do not represent a challenge to science itself.

The problem is Evangelical Creationists tend to use these mythical challenges among scientists to spread malicious rumors of doubt that the science of evolution itself is controversial and in doubt among scientists.

[Roy]

An analogy doesn't require matching on every point. It is a way to explain something by making a comparison. Man, you really are being pedantic lately. What's gotten into you?

probably the stress of a house move.

[Starlight]

element771,

Firstly, thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful and sincere engagement here. It's a very pleasant change from the Sparkos and Adrifts of this forum. Secondly, sorry I've gotten distracted with other things and this thread has gotten away from us. I haven't had time to reread much further in TGD. When I finish the book I'll consider whether I want to explore any of the arguments it makes in more detail, and if so, post a new thread in this forum on that topic, since this one has gone sideways.

I can't comment on them as a whole but there are some [arguments for the existence of God] that I find very compelling and others not so much.

Okay, fair enough. If you wanted to name the ones you find compelling I would be interested to see what they are, or you could start a thread in this forum laying one of them out in detail.

This is a big one for me and perhaps the most potent. I know that there are particular theodicies in Christianity that deal with this issue but that doesn't take the sting out of it.

Fair enough. I think a lot of people over the years have struggled with the question of why a powerful and benevolent deity would allow so much apparently unnecessary suffering.