Evolution Isn't Science

I read your post 168. Whether it is easier to ask, "Do you know it is true that natural selection and with survival of the fittest is the cause of the history of life on earth?" OR "Do you know it is true that Darwinism is the cause of the history of life on earth?"...is to attempt to make a distinction without a difference. To claim these represent different questions is to attempt to seize upon a scientific snobbery, and a convienient excuse to evade the question. He evaded the question because to answer yes requires his provision of an epistemic response with my next question. The honest answer would be that his certitude does not reach warranted true belief. OK. That would be enough for me. But, it simply would reveal that his sparring with those who are not as "scientifically sofisticated" as he or as adept with debate techniques. So, he creates his diversions and becomes desultory.

It was not my intent to develope an argument based on molecular models, so as to do harm to non-scientific Darwinism is a cannard. It was not my intent to argue the subcellular, molecular, and subatomic aspects of how mutations occur, how so few of those mutations are passed on to progeny. My question's underpinning was philosophical in its presentation. After all, the materialist cannot tell us the makeup of abstract invarient entities. Science, being a slave to philosophy, cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions. AMD knows this, but does not want to address these issues as it applies to his worldview. That is not meant to be a criticism of AMD, it is just how he presents his arguments. It was not my intent to prove or disprove the theory of Darwinism. It was my intent to have AMD simply real the truth that abduction, as it applies to Darwins five criteria proving or disproving his theory, is not possible to assertain. It is, if true, an historical science and as you know historical sciences have their inherent limitations. I fully understand his declaration that 'as a model', he claims it useful to some scientists. But that was not the question, was it?

You may assert that they have a "pretty good idea", but there are those who may think otherwise. So a certitude of "pretty good idea" does not rise to the level of truth. That is all I was asking the man. You seem to be able to answer the question. I seem to be able to answer the question without doing irreparable harm to non-scientific discussions of the topic of what...shall I dare say... Darwinism. I think you understand me. And as you say, AMD does not KNOW it is TRUE. He simply tries to imply it is true with an arrogance and officialism to intimidate others. To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Speak nicely to each other. If not, then the road goes two ways.

Philosophy is the basis for science.

Science is a branch of philosophy.

“Care to answer the questions?

Propagandists don’t answer questions, mom. They merely throw turds in the well water.

“Einstein was rather perturbed at the postmodernists glomming on to his theory or relativity as any sort of confirmation that the universe is disjointed”

Yes. I might blame Einstein for some of the wackier forms relatvism, especially considering some of his popular non-scientific writings, for instance the theory of “finite but unbounded.” But Einsteinian relativism is not postmodern relativism, and much of it can be found in the sort of garden variety relativism in which we all believe. The term “Einsteinism,” like Darwinism, might be appropriate even though Einstein isn’t strictly responsible for it.

I believe non-scientific Darwinism to be a real historical phenomenon, and I don’t think much of it has to do specifically with Darwin’s writings. Partly this is to do with the fact that the larger idea of evolution was highly developed and widely believed in before Darwin was born. Because of the elegance and practical success of natural selection he happened to become the most famous exponent of the bigger idea. But it could just as easily been someone else.

When I think of all the different names associated with Darwinism, from TH Huxley and Spencer to William Graham Sumner, GB Shaw, TR, HG Wells, Sanger, Stopes, and even Hitler, I despair of it having any real meaning. But I think it does, if only because all those people saw something in Darwin, as did there enemies (well, maybe not Hitler, who wasn’t really an intellectual, though I think his reading may have been wide, if narrow and wacky). Something in his writings, or something people thought was in there, struck some chord. Even if they were wrong it’s significant.

“I do not venerate Darwin, nor draw wildly extravagant philosophical extrapolations based upon his theory”

Nor do evolutionary biologists, nor presumably any actual scientists who make scientific use of evolution. Popularizers may do so, and thereby confuse the opponents of scientific evolution. But said opponents are wrong if they think they can make headway against scientific evolution, which is encapsulated in the theory of natural selection, by descrediting the extra-scientific implications of big “e” evolution.

It is surprising how many people are unaware that Darwin’s real scientific claim to fame is natural and sexual selection. The sweeping story of macroevolution and missing links get all the press. Variability of inheritable traits is relatively (not in an Einsteinian sense) boring. I usually try to explain Darwin’s importance by explaining how he came up with all that without having heard genes, nor with the benefit of the first thing we learn about in junior high-level biology, which is Mendel’s dominant and recessive pea traits theory.

Darwin had plenty of forerunners, most importantly perhaps Malthus. But to have your theory confirmed almost a century later by the time we discover DNA, wow. That’s a one in a billion idea.

“Creationism meanwhile is a dead end that leads nowhere and to nothing - to no further knowledge or discovery - it is useless.”

Spirited: Creation ex nihilo dead? No, it’s the other way around. It’s materialistic Universal Evolutionism that is the dead end since it is unable to account for the origin of life:

“...science has no...answer to the question of the origin of life on earth. Perhaps (life) is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created...by the will of a being outside...scientific understanding, or it evolved...spontaneously through chemical reactions...in nonliving matter...The first theory...is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith (which assumes) that the scientific view...is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.” (Until the Sun Dies, Robert Jastrow, 1977, pp. 62-63)

Abiogenesis is a dead end and so desperate are evolutionists on this score that Richard Dawkins recently moved ever so quietly in the direction of panspermia——which merely moves the problem out into deep space.

No, evolution has nothing to do with true empirical science as the respected traditionalist metaphysician Rene Guenon (1886-1951) reveals in his brilliant critical analysis of Theosophy and Spiritism entitled, “The Spiritist Fallacy.”

Guenon writes that in early Theosophist and spiritist (mediums/channelers) circles use of the word ‘progress’ or ‘progressivist’ preceded the use of the word ‘evolution.’ The roots of Theosophy, hence of evolution, stretch back to the ancient Upanishads of India and to ancient Greece, and in its modern version, progress and/or evolution-—depending on whether it is Darwinian or Teilhardian-— describes either the progress (transmigration) of life or spirit as it inhabits in succession the bodies of different beings over the course of thousands or even millions and billions of years.

Eventually the word evolution became preferred, especially by empirical realists and dialectical materialists like Karl Marx because it had a more ‘scientific’ allure:

“This kind of ‘verbalism’...provides the illusion of thought for those incapable of really thinking...” wrote Guenon. (ibid, p. 231)

Speaking of verbalism, the embrace of Darwinism by dialectical materialists was a sham:

“Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution,” noted G. Plekhanov. “Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar (Darwinian) theory of evolution.” (Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1929, p. 145)

As if all of this isn’t bad enough, in July 2008, sixteen evolutionary scientists came together at an invitation-only symposium in Altenburg, Austria to discuss their concerns with the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today and widely accepted by progressive liberals, secular humanists, Marxists, transhumanists, secular politicians, academicians, seminarians, and evolutionary theologians.

The Altenburg symposium is the centerpiece of evolutionist Suzan Mazur’s book, “The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.” Mazur’s book also looks at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover “the elusive process of evolution.” (Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution,’ reviewed by Walter J. ReMine, Creation Ministries International)

Mazur’s book openly acknowledges the problems surrounding evolution and natural selection (determinism) and documents these concerns with statements from leading evolutionary scientists:

“A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s role, though fewer will publicly admit it” (p. 20).

“Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ‘ham-fisted’, ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘secular creationist’, ‘philosopher’ (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), ‘quack’, ‘crackpot’ … ”

“In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.”

“Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is this year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species—the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, a brand foisted on us 150 years ago.”

“Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations.” (p. v)

“Basically I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.” (Jerry Fodor, p. 34).

Mazur not only calls attention to the existing censorship against non-Darwinian ideas but tells us why it happens:

“The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. … . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers” (Mazur, p. ix).

“The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. … this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs” (Mazur, p. 104).

That something happened by physical laws ( which I and many others think were designed by GOD) is useful. Assuming it happened by miraculous intervention is useless and inapplicable to anything else. I am sorry that you think that science is anti God. That attitude says a lot more about your limitations than it does about the limits of science.

“is to attempt to make a distinction without a difference”

I don’t think I made such an attempt. If my phrasing or emphasis was different than yours, sorry, it wasn’t deliberately so. I wasn’t retreating into scientific snobbery, only asserting that evolutionary biology and Darwin’s scientific fame do not rest on answers to such questions, however asked.

“The honest answer would be that his certitude does not reach warranted true belief”

Who says he is certain, or that if he is that has anything to do with scientific Darwinism? Because that is all about natural selection, as the other poster has repeatedly said, not Big Picture Evolution. His refusal to answer your non-scientific question has been explained by you as a tacit admission of defeat, but the question could just as easily have nothing to do with scientific Darwinism, and therefore is not worth answering.

I would say so, as I’ve repeatedly said this whole debunking of Big Picture Evolution as unscientific is a straw man argument.

“He creates his diversions”

It’s not a diversion to avoid traps. Or if it is, it’s an honest argumentative tactic. He doesn’t need to play along with the premise of your question if he believes it insincere or misleading. In this case your question was a trap, whether designed that way or not. Because it has nothing to do with whether evolution is scientific or not, except insofar as the specific version of Darwinism cherrypicked by you as representative of the whole is.

“Science, being a slave to philosophy, cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions”

Yes, but so what? That means he is obliged to answer your questions as asked so long it is an attempt to get at the philosophy behind Darwinism, or whatever? But why, when he doesn’t accept the premise? Science being meaningless without certain philosophical presuppositions does not automatically make your question legitimate.

Not that he couldn’t answer in good faith and wait for the next step to snap back. But it’s his prerogative.

“You may assert that they have a ‘pretty good idea’, but there are those who may think otherwise”

Naturally. I say that because Big Picture Evolution can be reasonably extrapolated from the endlessly confirmed theory of natural selection. Not scientifically, but reasonably. It seems to be your assertion, among others, that this is an inappropriate extrapolation, and maybe that natural selection is false, too.

Anti-Darwinists are right to think the Big Picture informs the work of evolutionary biologists, but they are wrong to think evolution can be discredited through demonstrating the Big Picture hasn’t been proven true. Because scientific evolution doesn’t rely on it, and never has.

“So a certitude of ‘pretty good idea’ does not rise to the level of truth”

Not scientific truth, and maybe not truth pure and simple. But the other poster doesn’t need to answer your question for you both to agree on that. Indeed the reason he refused to answer, methinks, is because he already agrees. That is so because it’s a generally known fact among believers in the theory of natural selection. If some Darwinists pretend otherwise, at least they’ll admit the Big Picture is less scientific than natural selection.

I might have refused to answer, too, because I can see the next step coming, which is to pretend all evolution is suspect because the Big Picture part isn’t scientific. But, again, most believers in scientific Darwinism already know and admit that. It doesn’t touch the real deal, which is natural selection.

You do know that argumentum ad hominem is an automatic fail, right?

You are the one who brought your personal qualities into the argument. That makes them fair game.

“evolution”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, but the evos need government funding to keep forcing its monopoly in the public education system.

Yes, as do those durn heliocentros and those godless atomicos. Face it, anything taught in the public ed system is going to have government funding behind it, by definition. Singling out evolution for that criticism is silly. If you want to argue that we shouldn't have a government-funded public education system, fine, but that's a separate question from what should be taught in it.

Evolution, noun, a scientific theory dealing with the origin of life,

I thought the complaint was that it doesn't deal with the origin of life.

Australopithocine are missing? Homo habilis is missing? Homo erectus is missing? Where did they go?

Lost in the mists of time...
They died out because they couldn't survive a changing environment?
They couldn't compete with a newer, smarter Hominid, and died off?
They died because of the spontaneous generation of a virulent virus?

I could keep this up all night, but in the end they died. The question remains, did they become the progenitors of the next generation of newer, smarter, stronger proto-humans or does the time line have vast gaps between these occurrences leaving each one alone with eons separating each such occurrence?

Don't misunderstand, I believe that evolution is at work and that it causes stable mutations in existing lifeforms. I have a problem rationalizing DNA/RNA arising from random amino acids. Long chain molecules, yes. Self replicating blueprints that result in self replicating complex living organisms, I remain unconvinced.

Regards,
GtG

You do realize what website you’re on, yes?

"I thought the complaint was that it doesn't deal with the origin of life."

Whose complaint?

I don't have a complaint. Just the observation that Liberals speak out of both sides of their mouths, depending on their audience and the headwinds they are bucking

You do realize what website you’re on, yes?

The website where you're losing.

Losing to a tale full of sound and fury that signified naught? That’d be a first.

I seem to recall this being a conservative website, myself. The conservative viewpoint on the matter prevails by default.

Hey everyone! Did you read this?

Thanks, spirited.

Science is a search for knowledge. There is plenty of knowledge to be gleaned from change (evolution) of carbon based things here on Gaia. But science, small s, is also used to advance political, secular and religious agendas both honestly and dishonestly. You got to be able to spearate the wheat from the chaff.

I am only writing to ask this of you. Do you know, from my posts on this thread to AMD whether I am someone who believes in natural selection or I do not believe in natural selection. Simply because I asked AMD a simple question you pegged me as a creationist, or you referenced me in that vein.

If he refused to answer the question, simply say I refuse to answer the question. That would have been fine. You question the legitimacy of my question. What is illigitimate about such a question? A diversion to avoid a trap...to a question? It is an evasion from an honest answer. You comment about defeat, etc...nonscientific question...therefore not worth ansswering.....I do not know where that assessment comes from. That analysis has nothing to do with the question I put to him. I told you I was not asking a scientific question...it was philosophical in nature. Then there is "debunking the Big Picture"....Neither I nor AMD was trying to debunk the science of the Big Picture. I asked a simple question. Then...honest argumentative tactic....then say I refuse to answer it.

Can you tell me the premise of my question? This was not a syllogism. It was a simple question to AMD. I made no premise or conclusion with a simple question. What are you talking about?

....evolution of scientific evolution or not....My question did not question this one way or the other... What are you talking about?

I cherrypicked one version of evolution.....What are you talking about? I asked the man a single question.

You seem to be conflating my question to AMD with my explanum after the question was put 5 times and you came calling.

Naturally. I say that because Big Picture Evolution can be reasonably extrapolated from the endlessly confirmed theory of natural selection. Not scientifically, but reasonably. It seems to be your assertion, among others, that this is an inappropriate extrapolation, and maybe that natural selection is false, too.Again, I said nothing about the Big Picture. I asked the man a question. You seem to be divining more than I intended to ask. I asked the man a question. You seem not to be able to grasp the idea of a simple question.

You do not need to answer my post to you. You may if you wish. But my question was a simple question. He did not answer it. That is all our discourse resulted in. It was a choice. It was a question. Nothing more.

I generally consider observations expressed in perjoratives and epithets to qualify as “complaints”.