The Eye Is Evidence Against Intelligent Design

[Zaydism]

Salam, I was wondering if you respected brothers and sisters could enlighten me when it comes to answering such claims pertaining to the eye and how atheists use such an argument as a means against intelligent design. And if the Islamic consensus can be provided in regards to certain statements made.

The eye began as a simple organ and evolved with time gradually.

The eye evolved through an evolutionary means of unguided process.

There should be no blind spot in the vertebrate eye if it were intelligently designed.

The eye is not wired to meet the highest degree of visual quality.

Further reading and the source in which these points were extrapolated from:

 https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/is-the-human-eye-really-evidence-against-intelligent-design/

Edited March 11, 2020 by Hameedeh
Removed extra space from the quote.

[Haji 2003]

25 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

There should be no blind spot in the vertebrate eye if it were intelligently designed.

Why should intelligent design presume some arbitrary measure of 'perfection'? 

[iCenozoic]

4 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Salam, I was wondering if you respected brothers and sisters could enlighten me when it comes to answering such claims pertaining to the eye and how atheists use such an argument as a means against intelligent design. And if the Islamic consensus can be provided in regards to certain statements made.

The eye began as a simple organ and evolved with time gradually.

The eye evolved through an evolutionary means of unguided process.

There should be no blind spot in the vertebrate eye if it were intelligently designed.

The eye is not wired to meet the highest degree of visual quality.

Further reading and the source in which these points were extrapolated from: https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/is-the-human-eye-really-evidence-against-intelligent-design/

The article actually isn't citing just atheists. It has also quoted Christian Ken Miller.

You would be wise not to be pulled into the false dichotomy of intelligent design (Christian creationism in disguise) or atheism.

[iCenozoic]

The discussion is really more about whether evolution is a natural process, or if there is something supernatural operating within us, guiding us to evolve in particular ways.

Intelligent guidance and design, versus a more naturally responsive form of evolution that isn't explicitly guided but rather just operates by the nature of how it exists or was created.

It's not really about theism vs atheism. It's more about creationism in disguise versus science.

Whether the eye was built in a step by step fashion by a designer, much like mankind might build a car, or whether the eye has been constructed by random mutations and natural selection, really is different from the question of if God is the creator. As we see in quotes from Ken Miller in the link, it is feasible that God could create the eye through Darwinian evolution or through intelligent design (hypothetically). So to answer the question, the best practice is to study the theory to see if evolution is a natural or supernatural process.

[Zaydism]

3 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Why should intelligent design presume some arbitrary measure of 'perfection'? 

95:4 We have certainly created mankind in the best stature

[Zaydism]

1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

The discussion is really more about whether evolution is a natural process, or if there is something supernatural operating within us, guiding us to evolve in particular ways.

Intelligent guidance and design, versus a more naturally responsive form of evolution that isn't explicitly guided but rather just operates by the nature of how it exists or was created.

It's not really about theism vs atheism. It's more about creationism in disguise versus science.

Whether the eye was built in a step by step fashion by a designer, much like mankind might build a car, or whether the eye has been constructed by random mutations and natural selection, really is different from the question of if God is the creator. As we see in quotes from Ken Miller in the link, it is feasible that God could create the eye through Darwinian evolution or through intelligent design (hypothetically). So to answer the question, the best practice is to study the theory to see if evolution is a natural or supernatural process.

Very insightful, thank you very much and was wondering if you could furthermore elaborate and perhaps share your own conclusions I would be much obliged.

[Zaydism]

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Why should intelligent design presume some arbitrary measure of 'perfection'? 

Beautiful brother could you please elaborate more on that statement for clarity 

[Haji 2003]

58 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Beautiful brother could you please elaborate more on that statement for clarity 

I'll have a go.

The OP gave the following two examples:

Quote

There should be no blind spot in the vertebrate eye if it were intelligently designed.

The eye is not wired to meet the highest degree of visual quality.

In both instances the critics had defined perfection in their own terms and then compared Creation to it. 

[.InshAllah.]

1.  There is no blind spot in our vision.  Each eye has a blind spot, but the two eyes together don’t.  This is why you can only detect a blind spot if one eye is closed.

2.  Intelligent Design says some features of the world are best explained by design.  It doesnt say all features are best explained by design.  So even if the blind spot was best explained by evolution, it wouldnt refute Intelligent Design.

3. The blind spot is due to the optic disc.  The optic disc is great.  Ophthalmologists and neurologists love it as they can diagnose all sorts of different medical disease just by examining it, including MS, glaucoma and brain tumours.  It is incredibly useful.  The blind spot has saved countless lives.  Alhamdulillah for the blind spot.

[The Green Knight]

Intelligent design has to be coupled with the impossibility of unintelligent design in order to reach a conclusion. Like, abiogenesis is impossible even if given billions of years and to realize this one has to have knowledge of a living cell. Then life guiding itself on its own all the way and to form something as complex as an eye? Without any direction? Meanwhile the laws of science randomly "pop up" in the universe and decide to be never changing? Its a discussion that spans many hours in the least. Since people here do not mind watching videos hosted by youtube anymore I will share a few great ones on the subject later in a separate thread.

Keep in mind that it is useless to try and convince others. We can only educate ourselves.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by The Green Knight

[Zaydism]

@The Green Knight  I would highly appreciate it if you would link the videos here

[The Green Knight]

6 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

@The Green Knight  I would highly appreciate it if you would link the videos here

This is David Berlinski. Look him up. Each minute of watching him talk is joy. He is an english teacher among other things like mathematician and biologist.

In the following video, three very learned Jewish gentlemen run Darwinism through.

The more you watch the more you will enjoy. You have been given the wrong idea that atheism is science. You have been mocked for not believing in it. Now its time to laugh.

In fact just watch everything from David Berlinski. Each minute will be worth it.

In this video Berlinski demolishes Christopher Hitchens.

 

[baqar]

17 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

The eye began as a simple organ and evolved with time gradually.

Is there any real evidence, brother, that the human eye has evolved?

If so, what capabilities did the human eye miss out on when we began to exist?

I somehow feel that it just an assumption.

 

[iCenozoic]

On 3/11/2020 at 3:37 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

Very insightful, thank you very much and was wondering if you could furthermore elaborate and perhaps share your own conclusions I would be much obliged.

Sure.

Intelligent design is really just a pseudoscience, constructed with the goal of inserting Christian creationism into schools.

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)"

Some intelligent design advocates (though not all) further deny things like the fossil succession and even go as far as denying common descent.

But it's important to note that in your original link, Kenneth Miller, a Christian among many Christians who accept biological evolution via natural selection and mutations, believe in God while simultaneously not rejecting science in favor of some bizarre form of creation based on the book of Genesis.

It isn't a discussion of atheism versus theism. It's a discussion of biblical fundamentalists versus scientists.

Proponents of intelligent design literally took a book on creationism and substituted the words Creation with intelligent design, thus resulting in the infamous cdesignproponentist. They then tried to make a scientific curriculum out of the book of Genesis as described in the infamouse "wedge document".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

But ultimately, they're just in a position of personal incredulity. Afraid that the theory of evolution might undermine a literalist interpretation of Genesis and the idea that animals did not evolve from one another and we're individually created as "kinds".

Their case was later defeated in the Dover trials.

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by iCenozoic

[A_A]

On 3/11/2020 at 9:33 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

95:4 We have certainly created mankind in the best stature

Best stature to fulfill our purpose, that is being the custodians of the Earth. I really don't understand Creationists. Does anything in this universe just pop out of nowhere without following a specific period of development? Are we not all creations of God, yet underwent a stage of development in the uterus of our mothers from a mere clump of cells into fully formed humans? Man's seed was propagated before God put a soul into him. The verses below can't be any clearer to the fact that man did evolve. It's chronological and simple, nothing to interpret. 

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by A_A

[Muhammed Ali]

You cannot appreciate design unless you see examples of 'imperfection'. These 'imperfections' reciprocate the existence of design. You cannot have mountains without valleys. "Imperfections" create a perfect world.

You could have asked this question about anything, e.g. death, genetic illnesses, natural disasters etc.

Since when has imperfection indicated non-design? When you play a video game with bugs, do say it wasn't deigned?

Even if I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe in the nonsense of neo-Darwinian evolution. Even Thomas Nagel doesn't.

And there is a lot more that could be said.

[Zaydism]

24 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

And there is a lot more that could be said.

I would love if you can share with us, you are a valuable contributor on this forum and your input has been appreciated by me and many others I am sure 

[iCenozoic]

12 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You cannot appreciate design unless you see examples of 'imperfection'. These 'imperfections' reciprocate the existence of design. You cannot have mountains without valleys. "Imperfections" create a perfect world.

You could have asked this question about anything, e.g. death, genetic illnesses, natural disasters etc.

Since when has imperfection indicated non-design? When you play a video game with bugs, do say it wasn't deigned?

Even if I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe in the nonsense of neo-Darwinian evolution. Even Thomas Nagel doesn't.

And there is a lot more that could be said.

It's not really a philosophers position to suggest whether or not a scientific theory is true.

No more is it a philosopher's position to suggest whether or not plate tectonics is true, or any other scientific theory.

At least not over the scientific community.

Edited March 13, 2020 by iCenozoic

[Zaydism]

3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

It's not really a philosophers position to suggest whether or not a scientific theory is true.

No more is it a philosopher's position to suggest whether or not plate tectonics is true, or any other scientific theory.

At least not over the scientific community.

Interesting, so based on the philosophers outlook on science and the proven facts, they couldn’t then formulate an opinion consistent with the objective scientific truths?

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/12/2020 at 1:32 PM, baqar said:

Is there any real evidence, brother, that the human eye has evolved?

If so, what capabilities did the human eye miss out on when we began to exist?

I somehow feel that it just an

Salam everything is evolved in universe that human eye is one of them although Allah created everything but through time he evolves everything based on situation until it reaches to its best place for example our eye in our ancestors evolved for nature activity like hunting & gathering but now evolved for industrial life also in our time evolution of eye is different in any person based on his condition & his job .

He, to whom belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the Earth, and who did not take any offspring, nor has He any partner in sovereignty, and He created everything and determined it in a precise measure. (2)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/25:2

He said, ‘Our Lord is He who gave everything its creation and then guided it.’ (50)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/20:50

http://www.alketab.org/طه_٥٠

The fact of reincarnation .Secrets of Qur'an and science.

Evolution and God | Pro . Hasanain RajabAli

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Ashvazdanghe

[Revert1963]

On 3/11/2020 at 5:15 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

There should be no blind spot in the vertebrate eye if it were intelligently designed.

Have you thought about the possibility that evolution is an intelligent design trait of Allah's creation?

[iCenozoic]

2 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Interesting, so based on the philosophers outlook on science and the proven facts, they couldn’t then formulate an opinion consistent with the objective scientific truths?

Anyone can formulate an opinion about anything. I could give an opinion about how brain surgeons are mal-practitioners, but why would anyone single out my opinion as superior to brain surgeons when I'm not an expert in brain surgery? It's just not a philosophers field of expertise to judge a scientific theory, unless he has a degree in the natural sciences and makes an argument from a position of science.

Edited March 13, 2020 by iCenozoic

[iCenozoic]

42 minutes ago, Revert1963 said:

Have you thought about the possibility that evolution is an intelligent design trait of Allah's creation?

The problem is that intelligent design stands in opposition to evolution.

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)"

this is what intelligent design advocates were fighting for in the Dover trials, for the insertion of an intelligent design curriculum that stood as an alternative to biological evolution, and rather presented a position that was quite literally, Genesis creationism in disguise.

 

there is a difference between the intelligent design movement (which opposes biological evolution), and the more broad suggestion that biological evolution is an intelligently designed means of creation.

Edited March 13, 2020 by iCenozoic

[Muhammed Ali]

2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Anyone can formulate an opinion about anything. I could give an opinion about how brain surgeons are mal-practitioners, but why would anyone single out my opinion as superior to brain surgeons when I'm not an expert in brain surgery? It's just not a philosophers field of expertise to judge a scientific theory, unless he has a degree in the natural sciences and makes an argument from a position of science.

You know very well that many scientists reject neo-Darwinian evolution (e.g. Michael Behe - who does believe in evolution). A philosopher or any sufficiently informed person has every right to reject weak theories, especially when they are ideologically motivated. E.g. many non-psychiatrists rightfully disagree with the excessive use of mediation for mental illnesses. 

I mentioned Nagel so that those reading would look him up. He is one of the world's most prominent atheist philosophers. Whatever he or any scientist believes should never be an infallible authority over intelligent humans. 

Having a degree doesn't make someone any good at their subject: https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

[Muhammed Ali]

2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

The problem is that intelligent design stands in opposition to evolution.

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)"

Misleading quote.

Even the most prominent ID proponents reject your claim: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

 

[iCenozoic]

2 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You know very well that many scientists reject neo-Darwinian evolution (e.g. Michael Behe - who does believe in evolution). A philosopher or any sufficiently informed person has every right to reject weak theories, especially when they are ideologically motivated. E.g. many non-psychiatrists rightfully disagree with the excessive use of mediation for mental illnesses. 

I mentioned Nagel so that those reading would look him up. He is one of the world's most prominent atheist philosophers. Whatever he or any scientist believes should never be an infallible authority over intelligent humans. 

Having a degree doesn't make someone any good at their subject: https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

My guess is that Nagel doesn't actually have any scientific publications disputing the theory of evolution. As far as I am aware, he isn't even a scientist.

He's just not the staple figure that we ought to turn to for a professional opinion on the matter.

The truth is that the vast majority of natural scientists, accept the theory of evolution. And by vast majority, were talking about on the order of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps some 95-99% of scientists. See project Steve for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

We have literally hundreds of thousands of published research papers supporting the theory of evolution that intelligent design advocates, as few in number as they are, deny truth in. These are papers from paleontology, genetics, microbiology, comparative anatomy, biogeography and more. Support is wide spread.

As a geologist, I am still baffled at intelligent design advocates efforts in denying the fossil succession. We don't live in the 1700s anymore.

And the concepts outlined in of pandas and people, in defiance of even common descent runs contrary even to our hero Michael Behe. Indeed, most intelligent design advocates, don't even accept that mankind evolved from primitive apes (though of course they wouldn't openly admit this). Really they can't admit to or agree on what intelligent design even is, lest they open themselves up for critique.

 

[iCenozoic]

5 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Misleading quote.

Even the most prominent ID proponents reject your claim: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

 

I didn't write the text book. Do you know who argued in favor of use of this textbook? Do you know who authored  of pandas and people?

[iCenozoic]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

William dembski. We all know him.

William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,^[1] specifically the concept of specified complexity, and was a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).^[2] 

Until September 2016, Dembski served as a senior fellow at the CSC,^[2] where he played a central role in the center's extensive public and political campaigns advancing the concept of intelligent design and its teaching in public schools through its "Teach the Controversy" campaign as part of the institute's wedge strategy. He has since resigned his fellowship position with the Discovery Institute.

I don't know why he resigned, it looks bad for the DI and ID.

Jonathan wells:

https://www.discovery.org/t/jonathan-wells/

These guys have their prints all over the intelligent design movement. They are the leaders.

"The book raises a number of objections to the theory of evolution, such as the alleged lack of transitional fossils, gaps in the fossil record and the apparent sudden appearance ex nihilo of "already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc". "

(Genesis in disguise)

Percival William Davis, also known as Bill Davis,^[1] is an American author, young Earth creationist, and intelligent design proponent.^[2]

^{young Earth creationism in disguise.}

Dean H. Kenyon (born c. 1939) is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the drivers of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.

He became a creationist around 1976, and gave testimony defending creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard court cases. During the latter case, he co-authored the creation science supplementary textbook Of Pandas and People. The case decision went against teaching creation science in public schools, and the authors then altered all references to creationism to refer to intelligent design before the book was published in 1989. He subsequently became a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and continued to endorse young Earth creationism.

Charles B. Thaxton (born 1939) is a proponent of Special Creation who went on to become one of the first intelligent design authors, and Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Phillip E. Johnson (June 18, 1940 – November 2, 2019)^[1] was a UC Berkeley law professor, opponent of evolutionary science, co-founder of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement, author of the "Wedge strategy" and co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) . He described himself as "in a sense the father of the intelligent design movement".^[2] 

Johnson rejects common descent and does not take a position on the age of the Earth.^[32][33] 

This guy is so hard core Creationist that he can't even give an honest opinion on whether or not the planet is 6000 years old. 

And yet he's supposed to be a legitimate opponent to scientists who back the theory of evolution?  

These guys are just Bible thumpers trying to hide their motives behind legitimate philosophers, they conflate science with atheism, and then try to rally religious believers into rejecting legitimate science. All without actually proposing any legitimate alternative or clear evidence against the theory. Only hearsay and broad ideas based on arguments from ignorance.

 

Behe and Berlinski are the exceptions here. The movement is largely lead and consists of a bunch of hard core fundamentalist Christians who want Genesis in the class room.

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by iCenozoic

[Zaydism]

3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Anyone can formulate an opinion about anything. I could give an opinion about how brain surgeons are mal-practitioners, but why would anyone single out my opinion as superior to brain surgeons when I'm not an expert in brain surgery? It's just not a philosophers field of expertise to judge a scientific theory, unless he has a degree in the natural sciences and makes an argument from a position of science.

Well I think respectfully you’re being a bit broad with your conclusion. When a Philosopher would come and state their objection to a neuroscientist in this case it’s not to introduce a new or better concept per se, pertaining to their own field of endeavor, however a philosopher in this context is seeking to signify to the surgeon that they are drifting away from the own objective procedures that they’ve highlighted in their works; and as meticulous as the procedures become and as far deep they stem in the respective field the moment they begin to drift away from the set laws in place the philosopher would raise their concern not against neuroscience or the laws in place in regards to neuroscience, but the deviation of the neuroscientists from their set laws.

[iCenozoic]

Alright, last post on these guys.

Let's look at Jonathan wells, intelligent design proponent and author of the article in the original post in this thread'

 

Wells is best known for his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses 10 examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid.^[45] The book is rejected by many members of the scientific community and has received much criticism by those opposed to his views.^{[7][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]} There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues.^[9] Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.^[53][54] Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."^[7]

In 2006, Wells published his second major book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, which was part of a series published by Regnery Publishing. The book was praised by Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005),^[56] but was described by Reed A. Cartwright of The Panda's Thumb weblog as being "not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally."^[57] Cartwright also edited a chapter-by-chapter critique of the book.^[57] A quote from the book linking evolution to eugenics, abortion and racism appeared on Starbucks paper cups in 2007.^[58]

In 1991, Wells and his mentor Phillip E. Johnson (the godfather of the intelligent design movement) signed an open letter which said in full...

Wells and Johnson have been criticized, along with others, for their questioning of the scientific and medical consensus that HIV causes AIDS.^[61] In the Washington University Law Review, Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey faulted Wells, Johnson, and others for denying the HIV/AIDS connection and promoting denialism via a petition designed to garner publicity but which did not have any scientific support.^[62]

 

^{this is the truth of the intelligent design movement, in all its glory.} 

^{These guys are the last people we should be backing. Meanwhile, the rest of us everyday scientists are backing the theory, and publishing research in support of it.}

Edited March 13, 2020 by iCenozoic

[iCenozoic]

18 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Misleading quote.

Even the most prominent ID proponents reject your claim: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

 

I took another look at your article for authors that allegedly aren't Creationists or allegedly accept evolution:

One listed was Stephen c Meyers.

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-08-07/

He appears to be another one, influences by the creation doctrine, to the extent that he focuses on Darwin's shortcomings in understanding the Cambrian explosion, and promotes an idea of instantaneous creation (just like in the book of Genesis) displayed in the Burgess shale. See the above link for critique.

These guys are very much fundamentalist Creationists. They want to promote the teaching of Genesis in the classroom. Some just hide it better than others. They throw a veil over their identity and try to make creationism into science. Even without doing any actual science in the process.

"Does Meyer reflect this modern understanding of the subject? No! His figures (e.g., Figs. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) portray the “explosion” as if it happened all at once, showing that he has paid no attention to the past 70 years of discoveries. He dismisses the Ediacara fauna as not clearly related to living phyla (a point that is still debated among paleontologists), but its very existence is fatal to the creationist falsehood that multicellular animals appeared all at once in the fossil record with no predecessors. Even more damning, Meyer completely ignores the existence of the first two stages of the Cambrian (nowhere are they even mentioned in the book) and talks about the Atdabanian stage as if it were the entire Cambrian all by itself. His misleading figures (e.g., Fig. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) imply that there were no modern phyla in existence until the trilobites diversified in the Atdabanian. That’s a flat out lie. Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna, mollusks and sponges are well documented from the Nemakit-Daldynian Stage, and brachiopods and archaeocyathids appear in the Tommotian Stage—all millions of years before Meyer’s incorrectly defined “Cambrian explosion” in the Atdabanian.The mistakes and deliberate misunderstandings and misinterpretations go on and on, page after page. Meyer takes the normal scientific debates about the early conflicts about the molecular vs. morphological trees of life as evidence scientists know nothing, completely ignoring the recent consensus between these data sets. Like all creationists, he completely misinterprets the Eldredge and Gould punctuated equilibrium model and claims that they are arguing that evolution doesn’t occur—when both Gould and Eldredge have clearly explained many times (which he never cites) why their ideas are compatible with Neo-Darwinism and not any kind of support for any form of creationism.  "- prothero

more deception by the Creationist camp. Intelligent designs common practice of lies.

Edited March 14, 2020 by iCenozoic

[iCenozoic]

18 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Well I think respectfully you’re being a bit broad with your conclusion. When a Philosopher would come and state their objection to a neuroscientist in this case it’s not to introduce a new or better concept per se, pertaining to their own field of endeavor, however a philosopher in this context is seeking to signify to the surgeon that they are drifting away from the own objective procedures that they’ve highlighted in their works; and as meticulous as the procedures become and as far deep they stem in the respective field the moment they begin to drift away from the set laws in place the philosopher would raise their concern not against neuroscience or the laws in place in regards to neuroscience, but the deviation of the neuroscientists from their set laws.

Indeed, the Creationists are trying to replace the theory of evolution with a new or better concept. That concept being creationism. 

See the above commentary. The continual distortion of works by Eldredge and Gould, the continual denial of transitional fossils, the intentional silence on the age of the Earth. 

I speak on these particular topics because I study them, but I further see Creationists using the same deceptive tactics in other fields of study.

See further of pandas and people, and the substitution of the word creationism with intelligent design, see the wedge document, see who these people are. They're largely young Earth Creationists. And the only way to get creationism into the scientific curriculum is to mask it as some sort of legitimate alternative theory, and to call it by another name.

Now, I'm sure there are some people who mean well. People who don't want atheists taking over our classrooms, but that fight belongs in fields of philosophy and theology. Biological evolution is no more atheistic or theistic than any other scientific theory, be it plate tectonics or germ theory or the theory of gravity. 

Creationists are intentionally dragging the theory of evolution in because it defies literalist interpretations of Genesis. They aren't being sincere about their motives however and would rather it appear as if they are fighting against atheism. Which is why guys like Steven Meyers jump between topics of the Cambrian explosion (he's not a paleontologist), abiogenesis (which is different from the theory of evolution) and topics of philosophy (which are further irrelevant to science).

They're going to try to get biblical Genesis into the classroom at any means necessary. Even if it means deceiving the general public. So long as they can publish their books and stuff their pockets while getting a pat on the back and more donations from religious affiliations. 

Another closely linked and similar group is answers in Genesis, headed by Ken ham. The guy has constructed museums (ex. the ark encounter) and is using religion to finance biblical creation related teachings. All the while finding ways to receive tax breaks and government benefits by suggesting that it's a secular tourist attraction and then they file lawsuits of religious discrimination whenever the government cuts it's funds for religious indoctrination.

The intelligent design movement is using the same tactics. It's creationism but they want to make it sound legitimate so they call it a new alternative theory and attempt to come up with scientific alternatives. They want to teach Genesis in the science classroom, and they are taking any and all deceptive action possible to get there. And when actual scientists criticise them, they come up with bizarre responses about "teaching the controversy" and about how scientists are afraid to lose their tenure (which is really just absurd). They talk about how they're being discriminated against and file lawsuits just like Ken ham.

Similar tactics, similar motives, same deception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Allegations_of_discrimination_against_ID_proponents

Edited March 14, 2020 by iCenozoic

[baqar]

8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Indeed, the Creationists are trying to replace the theory of evolution with a new or better concept. That concept being creationism. 

Your profile describes you as a Christian.

Are you now trying to deny the Creator?

[iCenozoic]

1 hour ago, baqar said:

Your profile describes you as a Christian.

Are you now trying to deny the Creator?

The term "Creationists" refers to ardent biblical literalists. People who believe, as the intelligent design book of pandas and people has described:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)"

 

the text originally using the word "creation" and thus reflecting the classic cdesignproponentsist typo in the text.

these are people who believe in the instantaneous creation of life, as literally interpreted from the book of Genesis.

not all Christians are intelligent design proponents, nor are we Creationists of this type.

Edited March 15, 2020 by iCenozoic

[baqar]

Well, as you would expect from a Muslim, I strongly believe that God created mankind.

In his design, He may have incorporated the biological principle of evolution in some things but not necessarily in everything.

That is what an All Powerful person does.

He does not blindly apply a given rule to everything..

As for human beings, I reject the view that the current generation of humans has evolved from other species.

They may have evolved from other humanoids but certainly not from frogs and fish.

The fact that Adam and Eve are mentioned in at least three major religions means that creation cannot be entirely untrue.

While I don't reject evolution as a general biological principle, I refuse to believe that I am the grandson of a frog.

My grandparents were Adam and Eve.

Please note that the evidence for evolution is largely non-mathematical which to my mind, means imperfection.

Anyway, that is how I treat evolution and creation as acceptable within their own domains.

But not as one OR the other as many people do !