Interesting discussions at PsienceQuest

#1
As many of you probably know, some people have chosen to start a new forum to discuss very much the same topics as we do here. The idea of this thread is that it can be a place to gather links to particularly notable discussions over there.

I'd like to kick this off with this debate about Darwinian evolution:

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-128.html

I'd particularly recommend this discussion that Kamarling linked to:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/stephen-meyer-debate/

David
 
#2
Darwinism was a child of the Victorian age when one idea had to replace another and concurrence was unsustainable. Ironic that an evolutionary tract promoted a revolutionary world view. It was God or Science and you had to choose. Interesting that Darwinism's most vocal advocates maintain that intractable world view. Even if Darwin's theory turned out to be correct in every detail - which I don't believe is the case - the data today, and especially in the c19th, is unable to sustain its most grandiose claims.

Off topic but I nosed around in PQ the other day, and noted the same lifestyle sceptics are disrupting the free flow of information by playing games. One can be sceptical of a subject, but one can't be sceptical of everything and hope to be taken seriously. It looked like missionary work to me, but then it always did. Those who do not learn from history are destined to argue with Linda.
 
#3
I have several articles and links on intelligent design on my blog:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-and-links-arranged-by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_id

Topics include

Overviews
FAQs
Origin of Life
Origin of Species ("Macro-Evolution")
Human Origins
Cosmology
The Politics of Intelligent Design

A quick summary: Everything we know about chemistry tells us that life could not have arisen naturally. There would need to have been many orders of magnitude more time for evolution, including human evolution, to have occurred naturally. Micro-evolution, eg. Darwin's finches, caused by changes in the frequency of existing mutations and simple loss of function mutations, does not explain macro-evolution, eg. how a deer might evolve into a whale. The fine turning of the universe is best explained by design - many Nobel Prize winners and other great scientists were convinced by the data, and no, the multiverse doesn't explain it. Intelligent design is not a god of the gaps theory. It is based on the same logic used by Darwin's mentor: in order to explain something that occurred in the remote past, you should try to understand it terms of causes known to be in operation today. Just as we can infer an unknown mass through gravitational effects on known objects, we can infer an unknown intelligent actor based on evidence of fine turning of the universe and the existence of the genetic code in living organisms etc. This summary is just a summary, for the full details see the link.
 
Last edited:
#4
Off topic but I nosed around in PQ the other day, and noted the same lifestyle sceptics are disrupting the free flow of information by playing games. One can be sceptical of a subject, but one can't be sceptical of everything and hope to be taken seriously. It looked like missionary work to me, but then it always did. Those who do not learn from history are destined to argue with Linda.
Unfortunately they chose to allow just about anyone to join. I don't mind genuine sceptics, who really want to debate the evidence, but I think that decision may spoil the new forum. My view is that you absolutely need moderation - probably on any internet forum - and that does include banning a small number of individuals.

Getting back to evolution, I think the real excitement, is that it would seem that a lot of biologists feel the theory of evolution by NS is unsustainable, and they are starting to say so!

David
 
#5
Unfortunately they chose to allow just about anyone to join. I don't mind genuine sceptics, who really want to debate the evidence, but I think that decision may spoil the new forum. My view is that you absolutely need moderation - probably on any internet forum - and that does include banning a small number of individuals.

Getting back to evolution, I think the real excitement, is that it would seem that a lot of biologists feel the theory of evolution by NS is unsustainable, and they are starting to say so!

David
David,

Thanks for saving what you could of the skeptiko forums. I appreciate it. And I know you take a lot of heat for moderating but I think the forums here are better for it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Top