Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.

[exDemMom]

Interestingly, Marx loathed philosophy and insisted his theories were science, not philosophy:

Any kook or quack can claim that their ideas are "scientific", but that does not make them so.

Very often, kooks use a language similar to that of science and claim a scientific basis for whatever they are advocating, but their purpose is to lend credibility to their ideas so as to impress people who are naive about the methodologies of real science and do not understand its language.

In making a judgment about the scientific validity of such a claim (i.e. that socialism is based in science), one must look at whether there is supporting evidence. True, I have no desire to study Marx, but I have never heard any claim that he undertook any kind of hypothesis-driven scientific study (whether observational or experimental), the carefully analyzed results of which led him to the conclusion that socialism is, in fact, a natural and workable model for human society.

A statement out of your quote, "For these misty formations in the brains of people are necessary sublimations of their material, empirically ascertained life-process, which is bound up with material conditions," is as good an example of pseudoscience as I have ever seen. He put sciency words together, but they express no coherent science-based principle or observation.

[exDemMom]

I use it to describe a real difference between science disciplines. And I am not alone. From the evolution side of the debate:

This is Science!

I must admit, I find it rather amusing that you decided to link to and quote an article which appears to be written by a scientist, explaining the scientist's perspective, and which corroborates pretty much everything I have said about science and the scientific method. I posted a little while ago about how Marx did not base his socialistic ideas in science, even though he called it "science"--if I had read that article before making that post, I probably could have pointed at quotes in that article that explain the point I was trying to make.

That said, the use of the "historic" vs. "non-historic" terminology as used by that author are different than the way the philosopher used the terms. It is more of a semantic difference than anything else, and approaches into a huge grey area. For example, I may wish to examine the effect of a chemical on gene expression, so I do a series of experiments using successive generations of cells (what I call "passages"). Later, I want to reexamine my experiment, so I repeat it, but I use cells from ten passages later. I find out that my cells have evolved to the extent that they no longer respond to the chemical the way they did during earlier passages. Does this mean my earlier experiments were "historical"? Does it mean my results were invalid (assuming all other components of the experiment were constant)?

I should point out that this situation is not a hypothetical--it really did come up, when I was in graduate school.

Of particular interest is a passage near the end of that same article that you linked:

EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE

Evolution is the scientific study of how organisms — bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, animals and plants — came to be. Evolution relies on the same sort of scientific processes and evidence as do all other fields of science. The methods and processes of evolutionary biology do not differ in any significant way from those used in any other science. Evolutionary biologists use critical thinking, evidential reasoning, judgment of authority, hypotheses development, data gathering, and hypotheses testing just like all other scientists. Evolutionary biologists practice nonhistorical or historical science or both. All biologists contribute to evolution in one way or another. Some use experiments, for example with fruit flies, while others observe the sequence of fossilized organisms in the rock record. Some rely heavily on the other sciences for complementary data, for example the evolutionary paleontologist is beholden to physicists for the understanding of dating by radioactive decay of various rocks.

Darwin (Darwin, 1859) brought together a large number of observations and developed the hypothesis that the environment acted to select individual variants in a population that had particular characteristics. He did not know what caused the variation, such as eye color, growth rates, or height, but he determined that if a particular character were consistently selected by the environment through successful breeding, in the same way that dog breeders selected characters they desired in their dogs, then changes would ensue in future generations. This hypothesis he called "natural selection". As he and others gathered more evidence and added additional hypotheses in the following decades, his hypothesis became strengthened and called a theory. Evolution is a simple elegant theory in its basics, yet it rapidly becomes complex. This complexity leads to other hypotheses to account for aspects of the overall theory. For example, punctuated equilibrium — the idea that species are in some kind of evolutionary stasis for long periods of geologic time and then rapidly evolve into another species — was presented as an alternative to Darwin's idea that evolution was a gradual affair with changes taking place slowly and evenly over a long time. Punctuated equilibrium enhanced Darwin's theory by clarifying how evolution took place through time — it did not disprove the theory as some religious zealots have claimed. Today, many biologists and paleontologists around the world are working to better understand and test Darwin's theory in all its details. Some of these biologists confirm Darwin's ideas, some develop more critical details, and all constantly test the theory, but the theory of evolution has yet to be disproved in spite of all this effort.

As I mentioned earlier at post 509, Henry Gee, Editor of "Nature" was not so kind. He said: [quote not repeated here]

That quote is almost certainly part of a description of something else. While I couldn't find that quote in context, I will say that while such things as the development of language are difficult to reconstruct in controlled-experiment fashion, we can find enough evidence of language evolution to logically conclude that it is an on-going process. That does not mean that careful documentation of language differences over time is not scientific.

Evidently you have no use for Philosophers of Science like Sir Karl Popper and Carol Cleland - both of whom I've linked earlier in this thread.

True. I have little use for philosophers, and little patience for attempts by people untrained in the scientific method at trying to describe it.

Likewise, I have no use for "just so" stories which constitute much of the hypotheses offered by the historical sciences, e.g. anthropology, archeology, Egyptology, evolution biology.

That we are able to observe adaptation of wildlife in the field or evolution of bacteria in the laboratory does not make "just so" stories any less the fabrications that they are.

In my view, the historical record is simply too spotty for historical sciences to be taken as seriously as the hard sciences, e.g. physics.

Apparently, the only evidence you would accept would be a recording made by a time machine that can go back and observe (maybe by time-lapse photography?) the process of evolution as it occurred. That will never exist. Nor will we ever find every single fossil example of every member of a single unbroken lineage stretching back hundreds of millions of years, in which we can see the morphological changes as they occur. That we cannot document every single step along the way does not mean it didn't happen, or that the progression is fundamentally different than what we logically deduce.

To reject the observations that led to the formulation of the theory of evolution, and to its refinements over the years is to essentially reject just about all science--even physics.

Your use of the word "historical sciences" still does not match the usages of that term by either the philosophers or Lipps. Although you apparently reject my specific scientific discipline as "historical" because I make heavy use of evolutionary theory, I have never heard anyone describing biochemistry as "soft", or any science as "historical".

We are polar opposites here as well. For instance, I would say that the geometry (e.g. circle) exists, and the mathematician came along and discovered it.

Physical matter forms geometric shapes. Humans almost certainly observed natural circles, spheres, squares, trapezoids, etc., for millenia before the development of mathematics.

Obviously they cannot test what is not there. It is equally ridiculous to say that there can only be one explanation for evidence in the historical record.

I'll refer you back to the section of the This is Science! article that you linked earlier, and which I quoted above. There may be many explanations, but only those which are borne out in a systematic scientific analysis are accepted. You are perfectly welcome to propose an alternate explanation, test it scientifically, and publish it if it stands up to the scientific scrutiny.

[wagglebee]

Fantastic post!

[GourmetDan]

"Apparently, the only evidence you would accept would be a recording made by a time machine that can go back and observe (maybe by time-lapse photography?) the process of evolution as it occurred. That will never exist. Nor will we ever find every single fossil example of every member of a single unbroken lineage stretching back hundreds of millions of years, in which we can see the morphological changes as they occur. That we cannot document every single step along the way does not mean it didn't happen, or that the progression is fundamentally different than what we logically deduce."

Again, this 'begs the question' by assuming that the 'process of evolution' has occurred even as you admit that you cannot scientifically demonstrate that it has occurred. This is the same philosophy that produced the theory of punctuated equilibrium which 'predicted' that the evidence necessary to support it would not be found. This simply isn't science, it is philosophy.

And, as I pointed out previously, logical deduction is firmly grounded in philosophy; making it no better at explaining reality than the philosophy which underlies it. In order for philosophy not to underly belief in evolution, there must be evidence that uniquely supports evolution without appeal to the 'a priori' philosophical belief of the proponent.

If evolution is so firmly established as science, there should be some unique evidence in evolution that would be impossible for a biology created with a broad ability to adapt.

"Does it mean my results were invalid (assuming all other components of the experiment were constant)?"

Where are the results of the 'historical' experiments documenting 'evolution' that were observed in unobserved time and unobservable assumed events? It is the logical fallacy of equivocation to equate observable experiments with assumed unobservable events. It should be obvious that is a non sequitur.

"To reject the observations that led to the formulation of the theory of evolution, and to its refinements over the years is to essentially reject just about all science--even physics."

Straw man warning. It is not the observations that are at issue. It is the underlying philosophy through which those observations are interpreted that is the issue.

"Although you apparently reject my specific scientific discipline as "historical" because I make heavy use of evolutionary theory, I have never heard anyone describing biochemistry as "soft", or any science as "historical"."

Which brings us back to the question that asked what 'remarkable advance' could only have been made using an evolutionary framework?

"You are perfectly welcome to propose an alternate explanation, test it scientifically, and publish it if it stands up to the scientific scrutiny."

Isn't this more 'question begging' since the issue in question is whether or not 'the explanation' (evolution) is itself subject to scientific testing and scrutiny?

[GourmetDan]

"I have little use for philosophers, and little patience for attempts by people untrained in the scientific method at trying to describe it."

Unfortunately, failing to appreciate philosophers leaves one ignorant of the degree to which philosophy permeates one's 'scientific' worldview. A person could even end up claiming no philosophical influence on worldview which, as philosophy explains, is impossible.

Wouldn't it be funny if avoiding philosophy in the science curriculum has had the 'unintended' (?) consequence of raising up a whole host of philosophical naturalists who deny the influence of philosophy on their worldview?

[Alamo-Girl]

I strongly agree that Marxism is not and never was, science. Nevertheless, Marx tried to claim it was and promoted his theories (falsely) under the color of science. This I aver is what Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin have also done - which is to say, ideology is not science.

Popper's falsification philosophy was largely in reaction to both Marx' and Freud's claims that their ideas were scientific - by extension their followers would claim equal standing to the theories of physicists, and in particular to Einstein's.

Their claim was based largely on their "explanatory power" which was due to the ambiguity of their theories and how stories could be written or rephrased to dismiss any challenges. Popper's science as falsification showed that the true value of a theory increases as the theory survives repeated attempts to falsify it.

Popper did not apply his point to the historical sciences, but he could have.

"Explanatory power" will not do - make a "just so" story vague enough and it can explain away most any challenge but it does not make the story science.

[Alamo-Girl]

It is quite frustrating to discuss these issues with you because you keep accusing me of saying things which I did not say:

Although you apparently reject my specific scientific discipline as "historical" because I make heavy use of evolutionary theory, I have never heard anyone describing biochemistry as "soft", or any science as "historical"

Back at post 529, I explained that biology has a leg in both historical and experimental science.

Biology has a leg in both methodologies; many of its hypotheses are "historical" (e.g. evolution biology and astrobiology) but not all (e.g. molecular biology.)

And I never said biochemistry was a "soft" science. Indeed, the examples of soft science I gave in that post were psychology, social sciences and anthropology:

That said, the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science, e.g. psychology, social sciences. Such disciplines are so far removed from either historical or hard sciences, they are not even relevant in this discussion.

In most cases, "soft" sciences do not use a historical record for evidence, e.g. psychology. To whatever extent they do, they would be considered "historical" sciences, e.g. anthropology.

You seem surprised that I would use a source you consider to be credible but truly all the sources I have used are widely accepted, credible sources. Indeed, you are the first in fourteen plus years on this forum to disapprove of Sir Karl Popper as a source.

Your use of the word "historical sciences" still does not match the usages of that term by either the philosophers or Lipps.

Carol Cleland, not Karl Popper, used the term "historical science" - and she used it in the same context as Lipps. In fact, her essay on the subject was quite comprehensive compared to Lipps' few paragraphs on the subject. It is her specialty.

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science: Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science (Cleland)

In earlier work (Cleland [2001], [2002]), I sketched an account of the structure and justification of ‘prototypical’ historical natural science that distinguishes it from ‘classical’ experimental science. This article expands upon this work, focusing upon the close connection between explanation and justification in the historical natural sciences. I argue that confirmation and disconfirmation in these fields depends primarily upon the explanatory (versus predictive or retrodictive) success or failure of hypotheses vis-à-vis empirical evidence. The account of historical explanation that I develop is a version of common cause explanation. Common cause explanation has long been vindicated by appealing to the principle of the common cause. Many philosophers of science (e.g., Sober and Tucker) find this principle problematic, however, because they believe that it is either purely methodological or strictly metaphysical. I defend a third possibility: the principle of the common cause derives its justification from a physically pervasive time asymmetry of causation (a.k.a. the asymmetry of overdetermination). I argue that explicating the principle of the common cause in terms of the asymmetry of overdetermination illuminates some otherwise puzzling features of the practices of historical natural scientists.

You also said:

Apparently, the only evidence you would accept would be a recording made by a time machine that can go back and observe (maybe by time-lapse photography?) the process of evolution as it occurred. That will never exist. Nor will we ever find every single fossil example of every member of a single unbroken lineage stretching back hundreds of millions of years, in which we can see the morphological changes as they occur. That we cannot document every single step along the way does not mean it didn't happen, or that the progression is fundamentally different than what we logically deduce.

To reject the observations that led to the formulation of the theory of evolution, and to its refinements over the years is to essentially reject just about all science--even physics.

Piffle.

Physics is the epitome of hard science.

Newton's theory has withstood many attempts at falsification and it remains accurate for classical level physics work.

However, to do physics at the quantum level, one needs Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Field Theory. Newtonian physics does not apply to that level. Likewise, to do physics at the astronomical level, one needs General Relativity because Newtonian physics does not apply to that level.

Newtonian physics is not treated as dogma as if it had to explain everything or the entire discipline of Physics would die along with it. Nor was it rewritten or modified to incorporate observations at the quantum and astronomical levels.

Compare the treatment of Newton's theory to the treatment of Darwin's theory at different levels of biological observations.

If a laboratory scientist went to lunch with streptococci in his petri dish and returned to find anthrax bacilli instead - he would not be claiming that he had just witnessed evolution, he'd be calling the FBI because a biological weapons terrorist had evidently gained access to his lab.

He would not however be surprised to see gradual changes in the bacteria over time. That he might attribute to evolution - or perhaps adaptation if the same environmental pressures evoked the same changes in every instance.

At the classical level, the field scientist would not be appealing to evolution if he found a litter of bobcats in a wolf's den. He'd be looking for a behavioral explanation or perhaps a prankster. But if he found the beaks of the local finch population to be longer than before, he might attribute it to evolution - or perhaps adaptation if the same phenomenon occurred every time there was a drought.

At the historical level, the field scientist would not be appealing to evolution if he found a human skull in the same location as a dinosaur's fossil. He'd be looking for a prankster. But if he found a less advanced dinosaur in deeper strata, he would probably attribute it to evolution.

But when he did not observe what the hypothesis called for - gradual change over time - which would have applied in the laboratory and field level, rather than falsifying the theory or coming up with a new theory for that level, he came up with a revision, i.e. punctuated equilibrium.

Thus, the theory of evolution is more like dogma than Newton's theory, i.e. "it must be preserved!"

And punctuated equilibrium is a "just so" amendment to a "just so" story. It cannot be otherwise because the evidence in the historical record is spotty. If we had the complete hard and soft tissue specimen for every organism that ever lived and witnessed its origin and the cumulative evidence did not falsify the theory of evolution, then I would not call it a "just so" story.

But as it sits, the scientist at that level is connecting the dots in a very spotty quantization of the continuum. It requires faith and thus, again, is more like dogma than Newton's theory.

And so, no, I do not find biology comparable to physics.

[wagglebee]

I have long believed (and often stated) that evolution is nothing more than a smokescreen employed by the Darwinists to avoid any discussion of their actual agenda.

There are over six hundred posts on this thread and most of them talk about evolution. However, this thread was never meant to be about evolution, it is about Darwinian eugenics.

The Darwinists have killed MORE THAN ONE BILLION innocent human beings in the past century. But whenever this is brought up the Darwinists immediately try to steer the conversation into a debate about evolution and, unfortunately, we usually take the bait.

[spirited irish]

“The Darwinists have killed MORE THAN ONE BILLION innocent human beings in the past century.”

Spirited: This makes sense in a completely perverted way. Darwinists are worshippers of death-—nothingness. According to them life accidently emerged from death and back to death it must go. Death is always and ever the victor and Darwinists its’ murderous helpers.

[wagglebee]

Darwinists are worshippers of death

Actually, they would claim to worship life. But if you can pin them down on this you will discover they only think certain types of people actually deserve to live in the first place.

[Alamo-Girl]

The Darwinists have killed MORE THAN ONE BILLION innocent human beings in the past century. But whenever this is brought up the Darwinists immediately try to steer the conversation into a debate about evolution and, unfortunately, we usually take the bait.

Guilty as charged.

[YHAOS]

“Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”

Nor, doubtless, did you feel any curiosity, since the subject never came up. You were born on a cloudless Tuesday afternoon, and then suddenly everything went blank? When next you opened your eyes, there you were, along with thousands of other scientists, all busily going about your various science projects? A brand new world?
Remember E=mc2?
You were asked which part of Einstein’s magnificent inspiration impelled the Truman Administration to go into days of agonizing “Existentialist nonsense” before the decision was made to drop the bomb that ended WWII. Further, you were reminded that there was no scientific reason to not just go ahead and drop the bomb without a moment’s hesitation beyond the technical considerations involved in the bomb’s effective delivery. What, then, caused the Truman Administration to hesitate?
No reply . . . although you seem more than willing to preach the standard doctrine about what’s “testable” and what’s “falsifiable.”
Remember the Tuskegee Experiment? What protocol violation or breach of scientific practice brought about the abrupt termination of that experiment?
Again, no reply.

Likewise, we might inquire, as we already have, what part of “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” is to be thought of as “existentialist nonsense”? Is “In the beginning” to be thought “existentialist nonsense”? Is “freedom of inquiry” to be thought “existentialist nonsense”? Or “freedom of association”? Or, are they, instead, all to be regarded as “thought meandering”?

“ Thanks to the Internet, I can quickly look up Popper (and just about anyone else).”

Yeah . . . except when your internet is buggy.

“The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists.”

How would you know? The subject never came up. You’ve not ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? Of Roger Bacon? Aristotle? Ibn al-Haytham? Isaac Newton? Euclid? Galileo Galilei? No more so than Karl Popper, I imagine? Yet, save the redoubtable Karl Popper, the term ‘Science,’ or ‘Scientist,’ properly understood, did not even exist during their days. These men, and others such as they, were scholars, from whom came what is our understanding of philosophy, science and its methodology, logic, geometry, ethics, and many another intellectual skill (such as political philosophy), and from whom the foundation of Western Civilization was built.

In the meantime, no doubt clouds your mind, no question disturbs your thoughts, and I continue to be without invitation.

[exDemMom]

From Dictionary.com:

re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

A person's "religion" is the system of beliefs by which they live their life. It may or it may not be what they CLAIM it is (e.g. plenty of claim to be Christians, but they are actually atheists, secularists or Darwinists).

As I have pointed out many times, science is not a religion. Whether or not one is a Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, atheist, or whatever is completely independent of one's choice to pursue a career in science.

From Dictionary.com:

be·lief    [bih-leef]
noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Compare to:

sci·ence    [sahy-uhns]
noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Of note is the fact that the word "belief" does not appear anywhere within the definition of "science".

[exDemMom]

When searching for a natural (Godless) mechanism to explain biological evolution Darwin enthroned “randomness and chance,” thereby reviving the very ancient idea of Chaos, ...

This is a brief sketch your religion, exDemMom.

You have no clue what my religious beliefs are.

[exDemMom]

The problem with the religion of evolution is similar to the problem with the religion of global warming.

The global warming faithful have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any weather anomaly can be said (by them) to be caused by anthropogenic activity.

In the same way, the evolution zealots have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any change or adaptation can be said (by them) to be evolution. No one disputes that adaption takes place, that's part of The Design, but the unproven part is whether or not one species evolves into a completely different species. The religion of evolution tries to disingenuously equate adaption with evolution, and have suckered many uninformed into believing that they are equal.

Global warming is a separate issue. No one doubts that the climate changes. The issue there is that socialist ideologues saw there an opportunity to try to mash socialism down our throats by trying to link human activity to natural climate change. Because politicians direct money to anthropogenic climate change research rather than to other types of research, some scientists (who should know better) started throwing the phrase "because of climate change" as a cause of just about every observation. In some cases, they also discuss what the actual causes might be; in other cases, they don't even discuss potential causes. I've seen scientists who do this at conferences and read it in many scientific papers. Different issue, different background.

OTOH, the theory of evolution is based in scientific observation, and revised as new information is learned. As far as I can tell, it is apolitical. Scientists use it just as one would expect scientists to use any scientific theory.

Science =/= religion.

[wagglebee]

As I have pointed out many times, science is not a religion.

Science is not a DENOMINATION; however, a twisted devotion to unprovable and false science is the religion of a great many Darwinists.

Whether or not one is a Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, atheist, or whatever is completely independent of one's choice to pursue a career in science.

As I said earlier, a person's "religion" is the principles they employ in their life and that isn't necessarily what they claim is their religious affiliation.

Of note is the fact that the word "belief" does not appear anywhere within the definition of "science".

Very few aspects of Darwinism fall into the realm of actual science.

To the best of my knowledge, NOBODY on this thread has any opposition to science, our problem is with evil philosophies masquerading as science.

[jda]

Global warming is a separate issue.

I beg to differ. My point is that both should be based on science, but have devolved into religions, where science is secondary to one's beliefs, and scientific fact is therefore distorted and misrepresented.

OTOH, the theory of evolution is based in scientific observation, and revised as new information is learned. As far as I can tell, it is apolitical. Scientists use it just as one would expect scientists to use any scientific theory.

I must ask, then, what you mean by evolution. If you mean that life adapts, yes, that is scientific, observed, irrefutable fact. If you mean that all life "evolved" from nothingness into a single cell, and then into the diversity we observe, that is not based on scientific observation because it has not and cannot be observed. If you are interested in knowing the facts, you might want to research:

- why Darwin "invented" the theory of evolution
- the fact that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proven
- why the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support evolution (there is still "the missing link", in fact, they're all missing)

Let me give you a test, but I'll provide the answers.

The human genome project has shown that man is 90%-99% chimpanzee - our closest "relative" (e.g., we share 90%-99% of the same DNA - let's assume 95% for the sake of this discussion).

Now, let's examine the rest of the story (answers follow, but don't cheat).

1. How many nucleotides are in the human genome?

2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee (hint: 95% are the same)?

3. How many DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?

4. How many years would it take (to make the math easy, let's assume a generation is 50 years) for a chimpanzee to evolve into a human if the changes were in the exact right sequence and there were no "dead ends"?

5. How many years ago did evolved man supposedly "branch off" from chimpanzees?

6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to "evolve" from chimpanzees? Note: Answer not provided - you have to be smart enough to answer this one on your own.

7. How many fossil records show the 25 million year "evolution" of chimpanzees into man (again, you'll have to research this one on your own - hopefully you do so objectively).

8. Finally, to see if you're paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren't we considered half banana and to have "evolved" from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???

Answers
1. 3 billion
2. 120 million
3. Commonly accepted as 3, but let's use 4 to make the math easier
4. 1.875 billion years
5. 25 million (that's a gap of only 1.85 billion years - not even close enough for government work)

[Alamo-Girl]

To the best of my knowledge, NOBODY on this thread has any opposition to science, our problem is with evil philosophies masquerading as science.

Precisely so, dear brother in Christ!

A prime example is Lothrop Stoddard who incited murderous hatred under the color of science, specifically anthropology and eugenics.

[GourmetDan]

Claiming that science is not a ‘religion’ is a red-herring that gets thrown out to divert attention from the fact that ‘science’ is based on philosophical naturalism.

The fact that this renders it useless for opining on unobserved, assumed time-frames and unobserved, assumed events must be avoided at all costs.

[wagglebee]

There have been AT LEAST 1.2 BILLION deaths in the past century that were committed under the guise of "science."

Most of these deaths have been textbook eugenics based on the idea that some people just shouldn't be allowed to live.

But a great many of these deaths (at least 50 million) are a direct result of "environmentalism" which resulted when Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" and "scientists" decided that it was okay to let tens of millions of Africans die of malaria to save birds (even though a link between the dead birds and DDT has never been established).

[GourmetDan]

Well sure. Seems to be a given that any ‘theory’ that is based on the ‘death of the unfit’ is going to end up causing the death of ‘the unfit’.

[Alamo-Girl]

Heart breaking and outrageous that any would value birds over humans.

Here's another, Steven Pinker, Harvard Professor of Psychology (a "soft" science) - recognized by the National Academy of Sciences with the Troland Award for an evolutionary basis for language - obviously influential and respected - rationalized infanticide in this New York Times article:

Neonaticide forces us to examine even that boundary. To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other. Many mammals bear offspring that see and walk as soon as they hit the ground. But the incomplete 9-month-old human fetus must be evicted from the womb before its outsize head gets too big to fit through its mother's pelvis. The usual primate assembly process spills into the first years in the world. And that complicates our definition of personhood.

What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed? Animal-rights extremists would seem to have the easiest argument to make: that all sentient beings have a right to life. But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life.

[BrandtMichaels]

oh, okay then, I guess it is a good thing the government does not direct any money at evolution - right?!

[BrandtMichaels]

Let’s see - evolution is generally promoting godlessness and ever since the scopes monkey trial the government has continually and increasingly promoted godlessness.

[wagglebee]

But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life.

People like this disgust me!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. By his argument there is no qualitative difference between a human and an insect and thinking there is a difference is tantamount to racism.

And that brings me to another, Peter Singer - Princeton Professor of Bioethics (ahem...) well known for his animal liberation work having similar ideas about abortion:

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[20]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[21]

If Pinker and Singer have their way, not only abortion but also infanticide will be become legal.

[mitch5501]

"By his argument there is no qualitative difference between a human and an insect and thinking there is a difference is tantamount to racism"
"If Pinker and Singer have their way, not only abortion but also infanticide will be become legal"

Luke 12:7 - But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

So colour me a kook!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! In this case, the label "kook" is a badge of honor - which I gladly join you in wearing.

[YHAOS]

"Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" - and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person . . .

Singer has just blown the PETA argument for “animal rights” out of the water. Singer would, of course, disagree. He would claim that animals have rights not permitted unborn children.

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true, dear YHAOS! Indeed, Singer might (and ALFs probably would) consider an amoeba to be autonomous, rational and self-conscious. Animal liberation activists have a very low bar for such things.

In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. He argues that animals should have rights based on their ability to feel pain more than their intelligence. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely intellectually challenged humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and that some animals have displayed signs of intelligence (for example, primates learning elements of American sign language and other symbolic languages) sometimes on par with that of human children, and that therefore intelligence does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such intellectually challenged humans.

[GourmetDan]

"OTOH, the theory of evolution is based in scientific observation, and revised as new information is learned. As far as I can tell, it is apolitical. Scientists use it just as one would expect scientists to use any scientific theory."

If modern physics and cosmology are as 'apolitical' as this site indicates, the current definition of "apolitical" doesn't lend much support for objectivity in 'evolution'.

"Natural Philosophy" is the name by which "physics" was known in the time of Isaac Newton, and well into the 19th century. We return to it mainly in order to emphasize that the more profound and circumspect approach to nature during those years is needed once again. We seek renewed respect for philosophy, especially for logic; and also for the everyday application of reason and of respect for evidence known as common sense -- which should be considered a foundation for, rather than a contrast to, genuine science."

"Modern physics regularly disdains both logic and common sense, and prefers interpretations of evidence favoring the bizarre and irrational. The resulting theories reflect the real world much less than they do the special biases of the interpreters--as suggested by the critical movement of constructivism, based largely on the thought of Thomas Kuhn. Other and more logical interpretations of all the same evidence and applications (even of nuclear energy) alleged to confirm special relativity, etc., are quite possible."

"Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings."

I am shocked, shocked at the level of intolerance among 'scientists'. Anybody see any creationists at this site?

Natural Philosophy Alliance

Anybody studied anything by Karl Popper lately?

[betty boop]

... killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.

Which begs the question of WHEN a human being becomes a "person."

It takes up to two years after birth for the brain — ~200 cm³ at birth — to reach its full size — ~1200 – 1300 cm³ — and get fully "wired up." Is the child a non-person during this period?

Or should we use some other criterion for "personhood," such as language ability?

The human child is essentially helpless without parental care until about age 12. During this period, since the child cannot take care of himself, can we regard him as a "person" yet? I.e., before he is independent, autonomous?

Depending on what criterion one chooses to apply, one can have open season on children for lack of "personhood" for up to twelve years after birth....

This is the sort of thing that results from Singer's twisted logic. There is obviously something profoundly wrong about it.

The only way to avoid this slippery slope is simply to accept that a human child in utero is a person from day one; i.e., from the moment of conception.

I believe this is God's intention. Which is probably why Singer is generating all kinds of mindless alternative proposals.... He would "be god" himself, and brooks no competition to his own singular preeminence, either from God or man.

To say he holds human beings in general contempt would probably be an understatement. Yet it is clear that he has no lack of high regard for himself.

Why would any sane person listen to him? He is a most strangely disordered man.

JMHO, FWIW

Thanks so much for writing, dear YHAOS!

[Alamo-Girl]

Oh so very true, dearest sister in Christ!

They've got a foothold on an unborn child and propose open season on infants - but there's nothing to stop them from claiming the child is not a viable person until he's twelve.

For them, the law of the jungle overrides all else - bloody, tooth and claw.

[YHAOS]

“To say he (Singer) holds human beings in general contempt would probably be an understatement. Yet it is clear that he has no lack of high regard for himself.”

To say that Singer holds humans in general contempt is stating the case mildly. By his lights, Singer could have had no objection to the sight of Japanese soldiers tossing Chinese babies in the air and catching them on the tips of their bayonets (a common practice during the Second Sino-Japanese War).

But, I do not find Singer “strangely” disordered at all. I think his disorder very ordinary. It is to be commonly found among those who seem to have the peculiar idea that all wisdom can be gleamed from a science textbook and that any values otherwise gathered are no more then “existentialist nonsense” or “philosophical thought meandering.”

Thanks, betty. Another illuminating boop beep.

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers...

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear YHAOS!

[exDemMom]

Logical deduction is firmly based in a person's philosophy. If I believe that the Easter Bunny leaves candy eggs on Easter morning and I go out and see candy eggs on Sunday morning, I will logically deduce that the Easter Bunny left them. The evolutionary bias in 'science' is as firmly based on philosophy as is belief in the Easter Bunny.

Oy. There isn't a speck of logical deduction contained within your "example". Anyone can say anything happened as a result of some arbitrary belief, but that does not come even remotely close to being a logical proof. You actually have to have supporting evidence.

Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.

Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation.

[Just mythoughts]

sci·ence    [sahy-uhns] noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. Of note is the fact that the word "belief" does not appear anywhere within the definition of "science".

A search of when and where and to what purpose the word 'knowledge' was used in the Bible is a curious 'study'. Also the number of times and places wherein the words ignorant and sottish (means stupid) are used as well.

Science has become socialized by the man made creation of a methodology for the sole purpose to claim and pretend there was/is no Creator.

The same man made scientific methodology was used to develop the hysterical fear mongering 'man-made' climate change.... Well, in a manner of speaking they are only slightly 'right', meaning these gods of knowledge are going to finally find that hot spot they claim is coming...

[GourmetDan]

"There isn't a speck of logical deduction contained within your "example". Anyone can say anything happened as a result of some arbitrary belief, but that does not come even remotely close to being a logical proof. You actually have to have supporting evidence."

It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent and that's exactly how belief in evolution works.

"Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation."

Misrepresenting the statements of others in order to draw an unflattering characterization isn't a substantive argument.

[exDemMom]

Science has become socialized by the man made creation of a methodology for the sole purpose to claim and pretend there was/is no Creator.

The same man made scientific methodology was used to develop the hysterical fear mongering 'man-made' climate change.... Well, in a manner of speaking they are only slightly 'right', meaning these gods of knowledge are going to finally find that hot spot they claim is coming...

Are you seriously trying to claim that the only thing scientists do is try to find ways to disprove religion? Do you have any proof that that is the only activity we engage in, as scientists? That the government spends billions on science for the sole purpose of trying to disprove the existence of God?

That is just plain crazy conspiracy theory talk.

Do you have proof of your defamatory claims? Then present it. While you're at it, you'll need to come up with a plausible explanation of how the tens of millions of scientific studies that are indexed in PubMed and the other scientific databases came into existence.

If you can't present proof that scientists don't actually do science, then you are bearing false witness against thousands of people by repeating such untruths. That's a sin, you know. Given that bearing false witness has its own commandment, I'm guessing that God takes lying about people pretty seriously.

[Just mythoughts]

Are you seriously trying to claim that the only thing scientists do is try to find ways to disprove religion? Do you have any proof that that is the only activity we engage in, as scientists? That the government spends billions on science for the sole purpose of trying to disprove the existence of God?

Religion is your word. The Heavenly Father is not a 'religion' He is reality. And that big fat TOE is a godless estate created for the sole purpose of creating a 'welfare' program for the survival of those deemed the fittest. TOE never saved anybody but sure has made fast work of the deterioration of the morals in this nation.

That is just plain crazy conspiracy theory talk.

Even the Heavenly Father foretold there would be conspiracies and warn those that 'believe' in the Savior His only Begotten Son to NOT be deceived. Personally I consider the hide and seek of pretending that the TOE resides outside of that hot steamy pot of primordial soup to be the grandaddy of conspiracies. TOE has no cough cough, beginning, and the end has yet to be measured tested and manipulated.

Do you have proof of your defamatory claims? Then present it. While you're at it, you'll need to come up with a plausible explanation of how the tens of millions of scientific studies that are indexed in PubMed and the other scientific databases came into existence.

All the proof required to demonstrate that TOE is a hoax is to dig up that artist created transition chart that use to get planted in every high school biology book. The most the 'religious' dogma of TOE has ever demonstrated is the commonality of substances used to form flesh bodies. It has never demonstrated origins nor will it ever. But that methodology is considered a holy ritual by some of the most knowledgeable of worldly thought.

If you can't present proof that scientists don't actually do science, then you are bearing false witness against thousands of people by repeating such untruths. That's a sin, you know. Given that bearing false witness has its own commandment, I'm guessing that God takes lying about people pretty seriously.

Pure science would never ever have the objective to prove that the Creator did not do what He said He did... Lying is a sin and misleading the young minds telling them they are just part of the animal kingdom ranks right up there with some of the biggest lies ever told.

[exDemMom]

I must ask, then, what you mean by evolution. If you mean that life adapts, yes, that is scientific, observed, irrefutable fact. If you mean that all life "evolved" from nothingness into a single cell, and then into the diversity we observe, that is not based on scientific observation because it has not and cannot be observed. If you are interested in knowing the facts, you might want to research:

I realize that it has been a while since this was posted, but it contains so many inaccuracies that I cannot let it stand unchallenged.

First of all, you cannot argue that "adaptation" occurs and is scientifically documented, while evolution, which takes place by the exact same processes is impossible. You might as well try to discuss why hotcakes are superior to pancakes. I find it amusing that proponents of literal creation often explain "adaptation" as a lightning fast process that occurs orders of magnitude more rapidly than evolution actually occurs, while claiming that evolution itself is such a slow process that it couldn't possibly have happened within the time the universe has been in existence.

• why Darwin "invented" the theory of evolution
• the fact that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proven
• why the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support evolution (there is still "the missing link", in fact, they're all missing)

The reason Darwin proposed his version of the theory of evolution is because of observations he made. He observed that fossils in the Americas are not like the fossils in Europe. He observed that many American fossils resembled extant American animals and did not resemble animals found on other continents. He observed that on the Galapagos Islands, finches filled many niches that are occupied by a variety of non-bird animals in other places. As a result of these observations, he, like many others dating back to ancient Greece, proposed a theory of evolution. As it turned out, his theory was far more useful to scientific exploration than competing theories, and thus, forms the origin of the theory that we use today. No amount of Bible reading would account for those observations, no matter how creative the interpretation--and once you enter the territory of creative interpretation of the Bible, you show that you don't think the Bible should be believed literally. (The "creation science" notion of "adaptation" is a non-biblical concept--might as well just acknowledge the scientific evidence as believe that.)

As for scientists who do not accept evolution as the framework of modern biology, I can say that I've never actually met one, nor seen credible evidence of one, at least among scientists who are in a position to actually use the theoretical framework in the course of their normal work. I am aware that often, advocates of literal creation misquote evolutionary scientists in such a way as to promote the impression that they do not actually accept the theory. This practice, known as quote-mining, has been discussed in some depth elsewhere. My suggestion is that if you see where an evolutionary scientist has been quoted saying something that does not support evolution, you attempt to find the quote in context to see what the scientist was really saying. Usually, such quotes are plucked from discussions about details of the theory, and are not meant to convey any doubt as to the scientist's confidence in the overall theory. This particular website has documented many of these quotes, both as they are quote-mined, and in their original context.

The argument of "missing links" in the fossil record is a red herring. Until such time as we achieve the impossible goal of finding a representative from every generation of every species throughout its evolutionary history, there will be "missing links". That said, it is quite possible to recognize that a 20,000 year old fossil is clearly human, despite the differences between humans 20,000 years ago and today, and to deduce that some process occurred to cause those differences.

Let me give you a test, but I'll provide the answers.

The human genome project has shown that man is 90%-99% chimpanzee - our closest "relative" (e.g., we share 90%-99% of the same DNA - let's assume 95% for the sake of this discussion).

Now, let's examine the rest of the story (answers follow, but don't cheat).

1. How many nucleotides are in the human genome?
2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee (hint: 95% are the same)?
3. How many DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?
4. How many years would it take (to make the math easy, let's assume a generation is 50 years) for a chimpanzee to evolve into a human if the changes were in the exact right sequence and there were no "dead ends"?
5. How many years ago did evolved man supposedly "branch off" from chimpanzees?
6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to "evolve" from chimpanzees? Note: Answer not provided - you have to be smart enough to answer this one on your own.
7. How many fossil records show the 25 million year "evolution" of chimpanzees into man (again, you'll have to research this one on your own - hopefully you do so objectively).
8. Finally, to see if you're paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren't we considered half banana and to have "evolved" from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???

Answers

1. 3 billion
2. 120 million
3. Commonly accepted as 3, but let's use 4 to make the math easier
4. 1.875 billion years
5. 25 million (that's a gap of only 1.85 billion years - not even close enough for government work)

When I saw these questions and answers, my first thought was that you copied them out of one of the many anti-science literal creation advocacy sites. But when I copied and pasted one of those questions into Google, I couldn't find their source. My suggestion is that, before pasting such questions and answers, you search through the scientific literature for yourself to find which questions are relevant, and the correct answers for those that are. www.PubMed.org (actually goes to an NIH website) is a good source for finding scientific literature.

Your first question and answer are correct, there are ~3 x 10⁹ base pairs in our genome.

The second one is a simple math question.

The third question/answer, however, is so wildly inaccurate that it can only be an utter fabrication. Depending on context, one DNA change can be lethal--or thousands of DNA changes make little difference in survival at all. For research, we make "knock-out" mice all the time--in which we remove entire genes, thousands of DNA base-pairs--and the mice survive and reproduce. We make other survival and heritable genetic manipulations to animals all the time. (And I do apologize that the site has pop-up ads, but the pics are nice. Alternative, you can search Google images for "fluorescent animals.")

The fourth question is kind of meaningless. I do not know off the top of my head how long it took before humans and chimpanzees were, by definition, separate species, nor do I know how much genetic alteration was necessary for that to occur. Even if I knew those, I still wouldn't be able to answer that scientifically. The rate of heritable genetic change within a species is more or less constant, but there are a lot of factors influencing that rate--average animal size, population size and range, and environmental selective pressures, for example.

The fifth question can easily be confirmed by using Google: human and chimp lineages split about 2.5 million years ago (not 25 million as your answer states). That does not mean we became separate species then, only that the subpopulations that went on to become chimps and humans were physically isolated from each other at that time.

Your questions 6 and 7 are both rather meaningless, for the reasons I discussed above.

Finally, your last question doesn't make sense. Even to be answerable, you need to set some parameters. I do expect some genes between humans and bananas to have high similarity--all eukaryotic organisms, for instance, use oxygen as the final electron acceptor in the electron transport chain that takes place across the mitochondrial membrane, so the genes involved are likely to be very similar. And, at some point, there was one kind of organism that was the progenitor of plants, animals, and fungi, and similarities do survive. The mitochondria itself is evidence of a common ancestor.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Contrasting Darwinian with Lamarkian evolution is a distinction without a difference.

Darwin firmly believed in the inheritance of acquired characters and he even developed a theory, Pangenesis, to explain why it happens. Darwin even believed that the effects of circumcision can be inherited. Lysenko wanted to return to this kind of theory of heredity. He, in fact, wanted to rescue Darwin from bourgeois perverters of the science of heredity such as Morgan and Mendel. Mendel in particular because he was a priest. Morgan because he was critical of Darwin.

JBS Haldane, one of the founding fathers of the modern synthesis of evolution, was stalinist and a shill for Lysenko.

[Agamemnon]

exDemMom: I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Makes you wonder what "peer reviewed" journals she's been placing her "faith" in doesn't it?

Even atheists have to live by faith (in their "peer reviewed" journals one supposes) -- a faith that demands that there is no God, and as internally contradictory as the Darwinism is that they use to affirm their faith ...

"Darwinian Dissonance?" by Paul A. Dernavich (as published in "Internet Infidels" 2003)

... it must be disconcerting to see how often this "faith" finds it self to have been sorely mis-placed.

In cancer science, many "discoveries" don't hold up

Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

Like exDemMom, I too am a professional biochemist. Unlike her though I have advanced in my career to a place well-beyond simply mixing the buffers, prepping the samples, running the gels, taking the Polaroids, and creating "poster sessions" for coffee break discussions at scientific gatherings.

Among doing things like seeing to it that the science supporting a regulatory marketing application is robust enough to support the label claims of the therapy, or resolving regulatory compliance issues in which pharma firms often find themselves, the firm which I own is called upon to sift through and identify what is reproducible science from that which is merely irreproducible wishful thinking and other one-off bench-top successes.

This service is performed on behalf of clients who are hedge funds and investment houses looking to place what are in most cases millions of dollars in what some calling themselves scientists have billed as therapeutic and technological advancements in health care. The technologies I evaluate span from novel biologics and vaccines, to pharmaceutical formulations of all kinds, to medical devices and drug-device combinations thereof

PhDs parade in front of me routinely and it astounds me to see how unpolished many of them are in their presentations, and so parochial in their interests that they are often unable to demonstrate a basic command of their scientific rationale.

Some theparies I have evaluated are truly promising medical advancements and worth my clients' financial investment. Many simply aren't. The science behind the claims all too often and as the article above describes just isn't all that robust.

Still, in all my years of reading thousands of published and non-published ostensibly "peer reviewed" studies and clinical studies involving a host of wonder-products and therapies, not one paper I have ever encountered or presentation I have ever heard made has tried to credit their findings on the basis of having anything to do with evolutionary premise or Darwinian dogma.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

One might suspect that the reason for this is because they actually hope to get their projects funded, and to do so one will have to actually stick with observable, testable, reproducible science!

FReegards!

[YHAOS]

exDemMom to Agamemnon: I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Although you ( exDemMom) seem quick enough to assert the superiority of scientific knowledge over all of human experience, you’ve yet to explain what peer-review process, published in what scientific journal, has lead Mankind to conclude all men are created equal, that they are then endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that governments thereby derive their just power from the consent of the governed. These are questions that you seem unable to bring yourself to answer, while you continue to assert Science’s superiority and tout it as the only endeavour worthy of serious human pursuit.

Nor have you yet explained what part of the formula E=mc2 impelled the Truman Administration to go into an extensive internal ethical debate before the decision was made to drop the bomb that ended WWII. Further, you have been reminded that there was no scientific reason to not simply drop the bomb without a moment’s hesitation beyond the technical considerations involved in the bomb’s effective delivery. What, then, caused the Truman Administration to hesitate? 
Although you seem more than willing to preach the standard doctrine about what’s “testable” and what’s “falsifiable” you appear to have no reply to that elementary inquiry.

When reminded, you were quick to report that the Tuskegee Experiment had been terminated and that steps had been taken to assure that a repetition would not be allowed. Why? What breach of scientific process protocol or of scientific practice brought about the abrupt termination of that experiment? 
Again, no reply . . . just assurances that such mistakes will not be repeated. What mistakes? According to what peer-reviewed scientific publication?

Likewise, we might inquire what has been found “falsifiable” in any of the events described above that reduces them to mere “existentialist nonsense” or “thought meandering”? What of freedom of inquiry? What of freedom of association? Are they all to be simply dismissed as vain pursuits of no practical value?

0bama (and his many sycophants) would agree.

[metmom]

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

One might suspect that the reason for this is because they actually hope to get their projects funded, and to do so one will have to actually stick with observable, testable, reproducible science!

Ouch....

[grey_whiskers]

I will point out that your link to the Popper bio bit goes to the Stanford philosophy department. That does not support the hypothesis that Popper is influential or well-known among scientists. Out of curiosity, I went back and checked the indices of various textbooks: Molecular Biology of the Cell, Genes IV, Cell, Physics, Genetics, Biochemistry, etc. In none of them did I find mention of Popper. True, not all of them mention names in the indices, but even among those textbooks that index scientists by name, I did not find Popper mentioned. Then I went to PubMed and did a search on popper, karl, which returned 72 items, of which 9 (12.5%) were articles having Popper, HH, as an author and were therefore unrelated to the subject of my search.

So much for the contention that Popper is either well-known or influential among scientists.

Gee, that was fun.

Let's play auto-authenticating Darwinist.

Popper is the missing link: but we wouldn't EXPECT to find any direct evidence of him in the literature, anymore than we would necessarily find the changes in the funding/regulatory environment which drive paradigm shifts in the sciences, within the intellectual "fossil record" which is the peer-review literature.

Or, to take the opposite tack:

How many of the peer-review articles mention Barack Hussein Obaama (whose predilictions and fancies drive the direction and scope of academic funding)?

So much for your theory that Obaama is well-known or influential among scientists.

QED

Cheers!

[spirited irish]

Agamemnon: “Makes you wonder what “peer reviewed” journals she’s been placing her “faith” in doesn’t it?”

Spirited: The differences between those on one hand who have actually done the hard work of digging into, unpacking, and analyzing the underlying meaning, logic, and purpose of philosophies, ideologies, and evolutionary scientism (what passes for ‘science’ these days) and those on the other hand who have not must not be understated.

The former seek truth, whether pleasant or unpleasant, while the latter most generally seek self-gratification, self-glorification, power, and/or entry to “inner circles.”

The latter affix labels to themselves such as Ph.d, scientist, and Progressive and sport them for the same reason as they wear designer label clothing, jewelry, etc.

Being high on conceit and hot-air but very low on real knowledge, they must pretend to know what they really do not know.

[grey_whiskers]

Again, scientists cannot test what isn't there. If you have a way to test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence, please share it.

Ever hear of the Drake equation?

Which has interesting implications for the oft-repeated Pecksniffian proclamation from evos that "evolution is NOT about abiogenesis, you stupid fundies; it's about observed changes to the allele over time in specified populations".

And, for the nonce, it'd be fun to do a "propagation of errors" analysis on the Drake equation to assign error bars to the final result.

Cheers!

[betty boop]

Although you ( exDemMom) seem quick enough to assert the superiority of scientific knowledge over all of human experience, you’ve yet to explain what peer-review process, published in what scientific journal, has lead Mankind to conclude all men are created equal, that they are then endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that governments thereby derive their just power from the consent of the governed. These are questions that you seem unable to bring yourself to answer, while you continue to assert Science’s superiority and tout it as the only endeavour worthy of serious human pursuit.

exDemMom cannot answer questions like this, because the scientific method cannot engage them. And thus as the reasoning goes, they really aren't valid questions at all, because the scientific method cannot engage them. These sorts of questions only refer to epiphenomena, ad hoc "penumbras" that arise purposelessly from physical/mechanical/chemical processes. As such, being intangible by-products of real processes in Nature, they are not to be regarded as "real" in themselves. They are only shadows of the real, having no inherent significance in themselves worthy of note by scientists and other enlightened folks.

Voilà! the "triumph" of post-modernist attitudes and thinking! Which seems to leave out a few important details about real human existence and its universal problems.

Ellis Sandoz has pointed out that

At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception.... Moreover, it is evident that the primarily nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth [not to mention the profound insight undergirding our nation, that "all men are created equal, that they are ... endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that governments thereby derive their just power from the consent of the governed"], of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality.... Experience of "things" is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself—and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective....

...Since the human condition is preeminently existence in the In-Between of immanence and transcendence, morality and immorality, nature and the divine, and since it participates in all levels of reality, any account of man, society, or history that fails to take all the realms of being into account is defective by reason of a vitiating reductionism....

Yet it seems the promotion of a vitiating reductionism is the entire post-modernist project. All nonphenomenal reality is either denied or reconstituted in terms of principles abstracted from Nature (i.e., the scientific method itself). In the end, it is at once a flight from reality, and the very inversion of reality itself, in which what we can "measure" (directly observe) becomes the reality itself.

I am very sorry, but this is simply nutz to me. Talk about "flatlanders!" It's as if these people really do want to go live in a nice, safe cave somewhere, in preference to standing in the Light of what to them is evidently a "fearsome God" that they don't want to have anything to do with. [As if they really had a choice.]

Oh well, I'm ranting again....

Thank you ever so much, dear brother YHAOS, for your splendid essay/post!

[metmom]

At the level of common sense, .....

Common sense? What's that? Can it be tested scientifically? Observed? Reduced to a hypothesis? Peer reviewed?

Clearly that's why we so little of it in scientific circles.