Barry Sez:
Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.
And
Good grief Zach do you have no shame? Do you seriously believe you can get away with saying that Darwin believed stasis is more typical than change and not his own words when he wrote infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species [are] required on the theory.
Darwin sez:
It is a more important consideration, clearly leading to the same result, as lately insisted on by Dr. Falconer, namely, that the periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which these same species remained without undergoing any change. We may infer that this has been the case, from there being no inherent tendency in organic beings to become modified or to progress in structure, and from all modifications depending, firstly on long-continued variability, and secondly on changes in the physical conditions of life, or on changes in the habits and structure of competing species, or on the immigration of new forms; and such contingencies will supervene in most cases only after long intervals of time and at a slow rate. These changes, moreover, in the organic and inorganic conditions of life will affect only a limited number of the inhabitants of any one area or country.
Darwin, Origin of Species, 1866. p. 359
Source
20 years of study, and nothing learned. Pathetic.
Doesn’t it depend on whether you assume that the goal of ID is to do science, or you assume that the goal of ID is to befuddle gullible rubes in pews?
No.
There is a level of incompetence at which ones acolytes become embarrassed.
The truth is that the way I see it Darwin really was a gradualist from early on, and did not go for stasis and then change. He did early on note “stasis” in some lines, indeed, and said that various lines change more or less quickly, but he was a gradualist in the earlier versions of his book. From the 2nd edition of Origins:
[page] 317 CHAP. X. EXTINCTION.
Origin, 2nd edition
There seems to be nothing there but gradualism. He even compares it with a tree, apparently including the way the branches separate gradually from each other (also his illustration in the first edition–which he apparently took quite literally in terms of times of divergence). By the fourth edition he is addressing the problem of “stasis” in the fossil record, and there does suggest that change is relatively rapid while stasis is more the norm, yet that apparently was not his original position, but more of a correction to fit the data.
I’d agree more with Barry on that issue than with Zachriel.
Glen Davidson
Changed his position as a result of evidence? What a wimp.
Should we not commend Darwin for changing his mind over time, or evolving his view, to better match the available evidence?
Ninja’d by Petrushka!
Exactly, that’s not science, holding to a position no matter what the evidence is happens to be real science. Like ID.
Seriously, could anyone properly guess at how the rates of evolution would be, rather than having to find out empirically?
Glen Davidson
.
But certainly not about what the 4th edition says, Zachriel’s pretty much correct on that, with Barry digging in his heels against the plain evidence.
Glen Davidson
Blended inheritance provided a similar problem, which Darwin acknowledged, but did not solve. He apparently did experiments equivalent to Mendel’s without making the key inference.
http://www.genetics.org/content/183/3/757.full
What Arrington has missed in his twenty years of diligent study of Darwinism is just how many modern problems were observed and commented on by Darwin, even if he couldn’t solve them.
Why would you study something you thought was wrong for 20 years rather then putting your efforts into developing what you thought was right?
Well, after “Barry’s Bomb” we learned he really doesn’t understand ID.
How long does it take to read through Answers in Genesis and copy all the fun quotes?
I’m wondering how well Barry did as a trial lawyer, and why he now seems to be a bill collector.
If I were looking for a trial attorney, I’d want someone who could avoid courtroom surprises like this.
What I’m finding odd, and I’ve seen this around a lot in the last few months, so I’m wondering whether it has a single source, is this idea that “evolutionary theory changes all the time so it’s a bad/dishonest theory”.
I’m wondering if the idea of biblical authority is so deeply embedded in ID that ID proponents cannot see that a) evolutionary theory isn’t decided on by a close textual exegesis of Darwin’s writing and b) being capable of being modified and extended in response to data is a strength of a theory not a weakness.
I read and post on uD. Barry is excellent as a advocate for many aspects of ID ideas. Thats why he has a well viewed blog especially by people on all sides who are more knowlegable and probably smarter then the general public.
Its a great great blof for ID and YEC can slip in too.
His posts hit bullseye mostly and I’m YEC.
If there are errors, I don’t know of any, in details of very complicated things it still is just details. I find that with everyone.
I am confident the furure belongs to ID/YEC in the intellectual paradigm change and not too far off. So those first and foremost in the trenches .with be who the historians talk about. If iD/yEC fails and loses then also historians will document these years and personalities.
You should get an autograph right now folks!
Mung gets something right:
A sample of Barry’s confusion:
Anyone have a guess as to why Barry thinks “connecting links” and “fine gradations” can’t be reconciled with the existence of periods of stasis? It’s as if he thinks the rate of change has to be constant, or something.
Poor incompetent Barry.
Is Barry Arrington The Least Competent ID Advocate Ever?
That’s like asking if one pile of extremely stinky poop is stinkier than other piles of extremely stinky poop. 🙂
GlenDavidson,
Glen, I think you may be confusing time scales here. Gradualism merely means that populations change in ordinary ways, by spread of variant alleles. It doesn’t mean that change is at all times continuous at a uniform rate. Darwin is saying both that periods of stasis are longer and/or more frequent than periods of change and that periods of change involve gradual, slow change rather than instantaneous change. Those periods may be brief in geological time but still very long in ordinary time. So no contradiction and no necessary change of views.
John Harshman,
Actually, the “modern” view is that change at the molecular is continuous and pretty much unvarying in rate.
What varies in rate is phenotype change that can be seen in fossils.
I find it rather astonishing that rate changes were noticed by Darwin’s contemporaries. That’s some fine science.
Poor Barry hasn’t got the memo yet:
https://billdembski.com/a-new-day/
I wonder what you call the last animal to leave the sinking ship?
Lawyer.
I was tempted to say sociologist, but I see that sociology is rather critical to space exploration.
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Richardthughes,
On the assumption that Dr D isn’t messing with our heads and going to spring a volte-face on us tomorrow, I’m pleased he’s decided to move on to more productive pastures
…though not via opening comments on his new blog!
I think it’s fairly obvious that the Dr. Dr. is going to team up with a certain university website, the one operated by our very own Sal. How much more educational could you get than that?
Waterloo: Americans believe in evolution, less in creationism
Is petrushka the least competent atheist advocate ever?
I’d have to say yes. I can’t say I’ve ever seen an argument from petrushka for atheism.
Is Mung the least competent IDiot fanboy ever?
I’d have to say yes. I can’t say I’ve ever seen an honest argument from Mung for ID
I don’t think Mung is an ID proponent. I think he sympathizes with the religious and political aims. Am I right, Mung?
It’s the null. I don’t need a religious hypothesis.
Over / under on UD going telic thoughts? I give it 12 months.
What are the odds you’re offering?
Is this an argument for atheism or are you proposing that you are the second least competent atheist advocate ever?
I am an ID proponent. [Subject to what that term means.]
I don’t see ID as a movement with religious aims.
I don’t see ID as a movement with political aims.
These might be an interesting topic for an OP.
Far more interesting than the subject of the current OP.
Rich,
I think Barry’s ego may hang on longer than that. Anyone who would buy UD and appoint himself “President” is in pretty desperate need of attention.
I don’t think he’ll let go of UD until he has a comparable vanity project in the pipeline.
It cracks me up every time I see it:
© Uncommon Descent, Inc., Barry K. Arrington, President
Having never offered an argument for atheism, I can hardly be called an advocate, competent or otherwise. I’m pretty sure you have to argue for something to be called an advocate.
Is there some problem with calling Arrington an ID advocate?
I don’t find theism/ athism very interesting. I post very little on the religion threads.
I consider religion to offer answers to the big problems of life and death in the same sense that homeopathy offers answers to medical problems.
Labels don’t interest me.
Why?
Moved some posts to guano. If you want to play harder ball, take it to Noyau.
FTR-FYI , Plato’s Cave and Fishing Reels
–> acronyms that confuse
–> disconnected statements
–> Folks kindly pay attention to my insights since I know so much more even though I don’t
–> Intractable retractables for $18
So, you’re a blind monkey. 🙁
I’ve met the leaders of the IDM and had conversations with them. Have you?
There are no ‘competent advocates’ for atheism. It is a dehumanising ideology ultimately full of despair.
Alan Fox,
I’m still not convinced that there isn’t an encoding from “Mung” to “Poe”.
Mung,
Look closer at the Wedge Document.
“Intelligent design is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”
— William Dembski
Gregory,
You keep asserting this without evidence. How about an OP laying out your case?
Personally, I think privileging faith over reason is the dehumanizing view.
Patrick,
Unlike you, Patrick, others study humanity closely, not just giving their ‘opinion.’
Theists privilege BOTH faith AND reason.
The dehumanising comes from sad, disenchanted atheists like you. 🙁
Isn’t that why Lizzie chose you to be a mod/admin here at TAMSZ?
Gregory,
Why does the level of happiness in a country seem to correlate stringly with the proportion of irreligious people?
The less religion, the happier the people. It’s not a claim, it’s a fact. Look it up for yourself.
You would make a terrible sociologist. 🙁 So far, simply professing atheism seems self-sufficing for you.
Even in Bhutan, the so-called ‘happiest’ nation-state, Buddhism is the majority, not anti-religion. Sad, outcast USAmericans offer no ‘scientific solution’ to this.
Most of the world pities and rejects the quite obviously low-level humanity of ‘new atheist’ USAmericans. Yours is one of the most despicable movements in human history. And sorry, no, it’s not ‘all about you’ after all. : ((
Gregory,
Since I’m neither sad nor disenchanted, your rant remains just a rant.
Should you choose to support your claims with actual evidence, perhaps we’ll have something to discuss.
You’re not disenchanted…yet you’re an atheist?! Oh, please, yes tell TAMSZ how you are ‘enchanted’ in your life 🙂