Alchemy, Marxism, and the future of Darwinism

Discovery Institute ^ | Feb 27, 2007 | Jonothan Wells

[longshadow]

This sort of fantasy twaddle always gets posted just before a full lunar eclipse.

And after....

[narby]

I then predicted that Darwinian evolution would eventually fade into the same obscurity that now shrouds alchemy.

If these folks keep on talking, they'll prove to be just as good as the Global Warming folks at spinning the Big Lie. They hope it will bring them as much money as the environmentalists bring in. Both GreenPeace and the Discovery Institute are non-profit foundations, selling their stories to the faithful. And both claim they're promoting "science".

[ClaireSolt]

In my opinion, this is the problem with so-called Darwinists. You say "he also backed up his thinking with careful observation and analysis". That is deductive, whereas the scientific method is inductive. It starts with a question, then observation leading to conclusions. It is not a metter of chasing down data to prove a theory. That risks leaving out conflicting data which would lead to something different.

[RunningWolf]

Hey there is at least one web site dedicated to that Darwinist twaddle. Care to guess its name?

Oh BTW, the word is they don't do any science there either.

[RunningWolf]

"he also backed up his thinking with careful observation and analysis"

And with what his most pivotal observations and analysis were based on, it becomes absurd that his deductions took the world of science by storm. It was only because they wanted to believe it so much that they were seduced by that so quickly.

[Stultis]

O.K. Here's a new entry! Who's got the big list of predictions of Darwinism's eminent demise (stretching back to the 1800's)?

[Robwin]

"Galileo determined through logic, analytical thinking, and experiment that the Earth rotates. Though he was forced to deny these discoveries, they still remained true."

Actually, no.

"It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive, and failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahé (who, however, did not live to see the telescope) and Lord Bacon, who to the end remained an unbeliever. Milton also, who visited Galileo in his old age (1638), appears to have suspended his judgment, for there are passages in his great poem which seem to favour both systems. The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis, is now universally recognized as a grave error, and he treated with scorn Kepler's suggestion, foreshadowing Newton's establishment of the true doctrine, that a certain occult influence of the moon was in some way responsible. In regard to comets, again, he maintained no less erroneously that they were atmospheric phenomena, like meteors, though Tycho had demonstrated the falsity of such a view, which was recommended only as the solution of an anti-Copernican difficulty."

Galileo may have been right, but he did not know why he was right and could never prove what he claimed (that was left for Kepler). Moreover, he brought his own troubles down on his head by being so offensive in the way he presented his opinions.

[Stultis]

It was only because they wanted to believe it so much

Ah, evolution, the single most unpopular theory of all time, succeeded only because people wanted to believe it.

[LeGrande]

Wasn't Newton an Alchemist? Hasn't lead been transmuted to gold? Alchemists made quite a few scientific advances. Their basic theories were wrong of course, but many of their careful observations laid the ground work for our present understanding. Do we have all the answers now? No, but we are getting closer.

[Coyoteman]

If man evolved via apes, how did their cerebrialspinal system, in one instant quantum leap, go from that of a monkey to that of a bear?

It didn't. That would be ridiculous.

See the following chart, and note that there are no bears anywhere:

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[RunningWolf]

Do we have all the answers now? No, but we are getting closer.

That may not be true and could well be false.

However to this statement of yours I agree with it to a large degree. In fact I have tried to make that point on a more general level

Alchemists made quite a few scientific advances. Their basic theories were wrong of course, but many of their careful observations laid the ground work for our present understanding.

[NicknamedBob]

"That is deductive, whereas the scientific method is inductive."

The Scientific Method is based on all forms of logic and deduction. The goal is to prove the contention.

Regardless of the inductive leaps it took to come to the inspiration, only demonstrable analysis based on deductive reasoning can be used to constitute that proof.

The scientific method compares a control group or population with an experimental group as identically situated as possible, so that only the experimental variable can be cited as evidence to support the supposition.

For further proof, the experiment has to be repeatable by other researchers.

[RunningWolf]

See the following chart, and note that there are no bears anywhere:

Well you have definitely proven beyond all statistical models that the evolutionist can draw up a flow chart that will represent his beliefs.

Lots of dotted lines in that series, 8 is it?

[AtomicBuffaloWings]

In regard to comets, again, he maintained no less erroneously that they were atmospheric phenomena, like meteors,*shooting stars* -- for the sake of those amongst us who may have been home schooled.

though Tycho had demonstrated the falsity of such a view, which was recommended only as the solution of an anti-Copernican difficulty."

[GSlob]

"Certainly someone has discovered the secret of turning Democrats into baboons. Or is it the other way around?"
Psst... as there already is more than enough baboonery, creating any more of them is prohibited by law.

[NicknamedBob]

You are perhaps correct that Galileo had at least one less demonstrable proof than I thought. I had conflated Galileo's pendulum experiments with those of Foucault.

"The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis, is now universally recognized as a grave error ..."

Hmm. It is odd that he failed to notice the relationship of tides with the moon. Evidently, he was an early victim of having an inadequate model to explain global events.

[ClaireSolt]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

[NicknamedBob]

"Sorry, but you are wrong."

Possibly not for the first time, even on this thread, but in what way am I wrong about the scientific method?

I. The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

[RunningWolf]

Excuse me, but does this lead back into the article to a degree?

germs to apes to man.

I think so.

[js1138]

Hey there is at least one web site dedicated to that Darwinist twaddle. Care to guess its name?

No need to guess.