Posted on 02/01/2017 3:20:09 PM PST by Heartlander
Little known fact: The year 2017 is likely the 180th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. If that number sounds high, it’s because while Darwin had worked out his theory of evolution by 1837, he didn’t go public with it until 1858.
Why the delay? Evolution itself wasn’t the problem. Earlier in the century, it was openly discussed. Darwin’s own grandfather had broached the subject. The problem, according paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, was that Darwin’s theory of evolution was distinguished from others by its materialism.
Previous writings on evolution were softened by a reliance on vital forces, organic striving, teleology and the like. Not Darwin’s theory. It argued that even the mind was nothing but a special configuration of matter operating under blind processes. “No notion,” Gould wrote, “could be more upsetting to the deepest traditions of Western thought than the statement that mind — however complex and powerful — is simply a product of brain.”
Darwin’s theory needed a climate of opinion more favorable to materialism, one that didn’t exist in the 1830s.
So, to be acceptable to his contemporaries, Darwin’s theory needed a climate of opinion more favorable to materialism, one that didn’t exist in the 1830s. Indeed, throughout Darwin’s youth, materialism had been actively repressed. Lectures were proscribed, publication hampered and professorships denied. “Fierce invective and ridicule appeared in the press,” wrote Howard Gruber, author of Darwin on Man. “Scholars and scientists learned the lesson and responded to the pressures on them.” Sometimes they recanted and sometimes they published anonymously or “delayed publication for many years.”
In one notebook Darwin reminded himself to “avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism.”
A generation later, the landscape was more favorable for materialists. And for those committed to materialism, Darwin’s theory was a lifeline. After all, if materialism is true, then something like Darwin’s theory must be true. Complex organisms do exist, after all, so molecules must somehow have whirled themselves into the far more complex structures we find around us, whether bacterial or human.
That also necessitates a finely graded series of structures gradually evolving from relatively simple molecules into one or more single-celled organisms, and from there onto multi-celled organisms, the first plants and animals, and so on.
Armed with materialist creed, the true believer is prepared to reject contrary evidence. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism,” Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin frankly admitted in the New York Review of Books. “Moreover,” he continued, “that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Thus do they rule out of the court of science everything that doesn’t fit their materialist ideology.
Notice where this leads. If mind is just a special configuration of brain cells, then mind is nothing but matter. How can neurons “decide” to do one thing rather than another? Nerve cells can’t make decisions. So, materialism repudiates free will.
“Our sense of self is a neuronal illusion,” said Jerry Coyne, a fully paid-up materialist and author of Why Evolution Is True.
The consistent materialist sees this, denies free will and dismisses consciousness as a delusion. “Our sense of self is a neuronal illusion,” said Jerry Coyne, a fully paid-up materialist and author of Why Evolution Is True. Molecular biologist Francis Crick said the same thing. “Your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,” he wrote. Or as he put it more succinctly, “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”
How deeply do materialists believe this? Notice that many of them grow outraged at public intellectuals who reject Darwinian materialism. But why the outrage if beliefs, ambitions and will are “nothing but a pack of neurons.” On that view the person skeptical of Darwinism can’t help himself, so why get outraged at the poor fellow?
The materialists might concede that their outrage is irrational, a byproduct of evolution — the fight-or-flight mechanism run amok. But that explanation opens a can of worms. If mind is a byproduct of an evolutionary process that maybe saddled us with various irrationalities, why trust human reason? Why trust it to lead us to the truth about biological origins?
In my decades as a journalist covering evolution and interviewing some of the world’s leading evolutionary thinkers, I have found that materialists have no good answers to this question, or to many of the evidential challenges that have endured and grown since Darwin’s time.
For me the conclusion is inescapable: Modern Darwinism is built on a foundation of sand — a house of cards, threatened even by the outraged huffing and puffing of its defenders.
It’s time for a rethink.
Long-time journalist Tom Bethell is author of the newly released book Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates. Praised by Tom Wolfe as “one of our most brilliant essayists,” Bethell is the previous author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.
Horses to giraffes; the human eye unexplained most complex thing ever; more and more smaller and smaller particles of matter...God in His sovereignty smiles, laughs, and many times loves hearing us give him credit...OTOH, the late, Stephen J Gould was a genius idiot...Punctuated Equilibrium Theory because such bones in between species couldn’t be found.
Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE
Interesting Lecture, While I don’t buy all his theories, he has some interesting ideas about where Darwinistic human evolution falls apart.
For some odd reason Darwinism popped into my head earlier this week and I realized, among other things, that it’s so seductive because it offers up hindsight and pat, convenient explanations for literally everything under the sun. In other words, smug liberals love it. It also cannot state with even a hint of certainty where on this so called evolutionary scale we are, how fast the changes occur, and what future changes will look like based on the supposed ironclad research they already have compiled.
ON, NTSA
Also 2017 is the 673th anniversary of the discovery of the magical powers of the 4-leaf clover.
A central premiss: Survival of the fittest is false. It is survival of the sufficient. Sufficiently fast or camouflaged or clever or lucky, etc.
Interconnected interdependent highly complex systems do not self create out of randomness. Information theorists and mathematicians understand this fundamental problem as related to the chance of the event occurring. Evolution theorist of today ignore this issue.
He considered it “absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist”[183][184] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind”.[92][183] “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.
Oh well. With the ever increasing ability to study the genetic code and refine the tree of life, the theory of evolution is stronger than ever.
If you’re mind, emotions, thoughts, vision, nervous impulses are an illusion...it also follows that ALL is that. That will also include scientific experiments, statistical tests, journals, mathemetical formulae, etc. You will have proved that there is no such thing as a proof. Absurd? Yes.
The great irony is that a scientist will assume that he/she/? Is able to think outside of materialisms constraints. That philosophy is self refuting. Any philosophy which is self refuting cannot be totally true.
Materialism is a useful approach to try and answer questions but not all of them can be answered with that approach. If you allow your brain/mind in the door you may have to let God in also.
In order for evolution to be true, scientists have to stretch reality out to absurd levels.
For example, we know from the Bible that the world was created about 4500 b.c. But science knows that to make their ideas “work,” the Earth would have to be billions of years old. There is no evidence of that, of course. But, working back backward, they interpret the world in ways that kinda-sorta explain their ideas and throw out all the other evidence.
Our kids grow up learning in government schools that we’re descended from some kind of carbon-based organic soup that eventually became us. Furthermore, they are taught that the Earth is nothing but a ball hanging in space in a not-so-special part of a vast universe. It’s criminal. The centrality of God’s creation and our part in is is suppressed.
Here, a brave poster...
There has been a lot written on this topic. As far as I can tell, modern critics of biological evolution consider the evidence. Modern supporters of biological evolution take it for granted and try to extend the theory beyond biology. They never bother to constructively respond to their critics.
Before Darwin, there was Adam Smith. Smith found spontaneous order in markets. Darwin found spontaneous order in life.
I find it plausible to think that the interaction of intelligent people striving to serve their customers produces an order that exceeds their expectations. These are the fortunate unintended consequences of markets.
I find it somewhat less plausible to think that mutations, one might as well think of them as birth defects, provide the engine for all the variety of exceedingly complex life we see about us.
Such is the power of education/indoctrination, that most college graduates believe in biological evolution but doubt free markets (freedom too).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.