The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[Fichori]

The problem is that 'Gods' theory of like begetting like and everything being created in a week 7000 years ago has been falsified.

How so?

Are you serious? LOL Which law of thermodynamics would you like me to use to disprove the Bibles story of creation? Take your pick : )

Have you read up on the space-time stuff? It helps discussing stuff if we have a common starting point.

The TOC asserts that God is Supernatural and created all matter, energy and the laws of physics, and, being Supernatural, transcends all natural laws of physics.

The idea of the Creator of the laws of physics being confined to them is akin to a paradox.

The laws of thermodynamics is only a problem when you try to explain the origin of the universe by naturalistic means only.

[LeGrande]

The TOC asserts that God is Supernatural and created all matter, energy and the laws of physics, and, being Supernatural, transcends all natural laws of physics.

You are saying that TOC is untestable, unfalsifiable and makes no reliable predictions. I would agree with that assessment. It essentially makes it worthless as a theory.

The idea of the Creator of the laws of physics being confined to them is akin to a paradox.

You are absolutely correct, the idea of an omnipotent being is inherently a contradiction.

[Fichori]

The idea of the Creator of the laws of physics being confined to them is akin to a paradox.

You are absolutely correct, the idea of an omnipotent being is inherently a contradiction.

And I thought you were above using Strawmen.

I never said an omnipotent Creator was an inherent contradiction.
What I said was that, the idea of an omnipotent Creator being confined to the limits of his own creation was contradictory.

When a computer programmer writes a program, he is writing 'laws' for the computer to follow.

The programmer decides how the program will operate, and, just because the he creates a 'law' that prohibits the computer from multiplying 2 x 2, he is in no way prohibited from whipping out his Casio and punching 2 x 2 =

[LeGrande]

I never said an omnipotent Creator was an inherent contradiction. What I said was that, the idea of an omnipotent Creator being confined to the limits of his own creation was contradictory.

Can an omnipotent God set limits that he can't violate? If he can't then he isn't omnipotent and if he can he isn't omnipotent. That makes God a contradiction.

The salient point though is that a theory based on a capricious and Omnipotent God that can do anything, makes the theory worthless because the rules can be changed at any time for any reason. None of the rules and predictions can be tested because they have no relevance to anything.

[Fichori]

You are a self professed atheist and your trying to disprove the existence of God with logic?

Absurd!

Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

[mrjesse]

Are you serious? LOL Which law of thermodynamics would you like me to use to disprove the Bibles story of creation? Take your pick : )

I don't see the laws of thermodynamics disproving that "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) At least the theory honestly posits a beyond-natural causer. Now if one wants to know what "Origins of all matter" theory does violate the laws of thermodynamics - check out the big bang which at Berkeley states that everything came from nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, that would be creating matter AND energy! (which the laws of thermodynamics say cannot happen.)

By the way, I was quite amused to see that you first said "..show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against." Then you said that 'Gods' theory ... has been falsified. Which is it? Is it unfalsifiable or falsified? [grin]

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

You are a self professed atheist and your trying to disprove the existence of God with logic?

Been there, done that : )

[LeGrande]

Now if one wants to know what "Origins of all matter" theory does violate the laws of thermodynamics - check out the big bang which at Berkeley states that everything came from nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, that would be creating matter AND energy! (which the laws of thermodynamics say cannot happen.)

There are many different theories of the big bang or even multiple big bangs. The primary evidence we have for the big bang is that the universe is expanding. Hence we extrapolate that at one time it was much smaller, anything beyond that is mostly speculation.

By the way, I was quite amused to see that you first said "..show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against." Then you said that 'Gods' theory ... has been falsified. Which is it? Is it unfalsifiable or falsified? [grin]

The problem is that there are about a dozen different creationism and God theories. Take your pick, some are falsifiable and some aren't, most aren't. If you are positing an uncreated creator not bound by the rules of this universe then how is it falsified?

[Fichori]

If your right about there being no God, then your good to go.

But, if your wrong, you've got one nasty surprise waiting for you.

It seems to me that Atheism is akin to guillotine poker, and, addictive as gambling is, its not a game a rational person would play.

But then again, I never accused anyone of being rational.

[mrjesse]

There are many different theories of the big bang or even multiple big bangs. The primary evidence we have for the big bang is that the universe is expanding. Hence we extrapolate that at one time it was much smaller, anything beyond that is mostly speculation.

Ahah! I agree with you that most of what that Berkeley page says IS mostly speculation! But the sad fact is that that's what's being taught in universities and schools across my country (USA) - including leading universities like Berkeley -- and it is being taught as well-known fact. If any other field were so full of speculation and was being dogmatically taught as fact, it'd be called religion (especially if it had moral implications.)

The problem is that there are about a dozen different creationism and God theories. Take your pick, some are falsifiable and some aren't, most aren't. If you are positing an uncreated creator not bound by the rules of this universe then how is it falsified?

haaaahahaha *wiggle* *squirm* *wheres the exit?* :-)

How about the oldest written historical account - Genesis - In the beginning, God, created the heavens and the earth, etc. (In 7 24-hour days, with a first man and a first woman, etc.) In other words, a literal reading of Genesis.(Hey. If any other old document of the age of Genesis were found it would be a significant historical document and would be worth studying and learning from!)

Now, about evolution. You said "The theory is that changes are natural and that selective pressures eliminated non beneficial changes."

Okay, I suspect you might be switching terms on me here. The theory you describe there is clearly demonstrated - I seen it it myself growing up on the farm! Some livestock that was born unable to eat or breath didn't live. But this doesn't address the other kind of evolution - the kind that I have not seen in real life - the kind which is taught as fact in schools across my country - the one that says that all life descended from one first cell. Call it the theory if macroevolution, or I prefer the theory of "All Speciation By Evolution." Or, herein, ASBE if you like. (Hey, come up with a better description and we can use that one!)

So is the theory of ASBE falsifiable? has all of its predictions been fulfilled? What are its predictions? If it is falsifiable, then that means it has a list of predictions that I can go read. Could you kindly point me to that?

Is a theory really still falsifiable if all of its predictions have been fulfilled? What if I put forth a theory but only include predictions for it which I can see are already fulfilled? Is it still falsifiable?

I think that you may be playing up falsifiability a little bit too much - or perhaps I'm just not understanding. For example, lets say I have a cat that lives in my house but one day I get home and the cat greets me in the front yard, and I notice that the front door is open, and then I remember not latching it when I left -- I can make a theory right away that says "I left the door unlatched, the cat pushed it open, and got out." Now I'm probably correct - and it's a valid and possible theory. But it's not falsifiable since I haven't made any predictions for which I do not know the answer. Does that mean that it's not a valid theory?

Thanks!

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

It seems to me that Atheism is akin to guillotine poker, and, addictive as gambling is, its not a game a rational person would play.

I have come to the conclusion that religion is a fools game, subjecting yourself to misguided men by the promise of eternal life. I would rather live my life my way, with my eyes wide open : ) Do I have any answers? I don't even know the questions, that is what makes it fun. I do know that life is too precious to waste on false promises.

[LeGrande]

So is the theory of ASBE falsifiable? has all of its predictions been fulfilled? What are its predictions? If it is falsifiable, then that means it has a list of predictions that I can go read. Could you kindly point me to that?

The number one prediction was that life would have a common origin. That has not been falsified. Fossil records could have falsified it but if anything have confirmed it. The discovery of DNA could have falsified it but if anything has confirmed it.

The second prediction is that life would continue to differentiate and evolve, it isn't static. Again the fossil record and DNA discoveries have not falsified that theory and testing in the labs on microorganisms has demonstrated differentiation many times.

In many ways the Theory of Evolution is exactly like the theory of the Big Bang. We know that the Universe is expanding, just like we know that more complex organisms have evolved from less complex organisms. In neither case do we understand the origin or the mechanism by which it took place, or all of the processes at work even now. We have tools (theories) though that we have tested and that work well for their purpose, but our tool box is incomplete. As we add tools our understanding will become more complete. The two tools that I expect to see are emergent properties and the mechanism (force) that is life.

Religious belief can play a part in this just like it played a part in the Big Bang theory (Catholicism). I believe at its heart that Religion is the struggle to understand, exactly the same as Science. I think I have figured out why so many of the great scientists are Jews, it is their religious beliefs specifically aleph null. Christianity has the same background, it is just that we have to use the right tool for the job. If all you have is a hammer everything around you tends to look like a nail. There are other tools.

[Fichori]

"I have come to the conclusion that religion is a fools game, subjecting yourself to misguided men by the promise of eternal life." [excerpt]

You have come to the same conclusion that I have.
What God wants is a personal relationship.
(Religion is the exact opposite of what Christ taught.)

"I would rather live my life my way, with my eyes wide open : )" [excerpt]

Possibly the number one reason people reject God is because the want to do things 'their way' with their 'eyes wide shut' towards God.
Nowhere in the bible are believers commanded to be ignorant or unlearned.

"Do I have any answers? I don't even know the questions, that is what makes it fun." [excerpt]

Russian roulette?

"I do know that life is too precious to waste on false promises." [excerpt]

I agree.
While believers are called to live within certain bounds, they are also called to live life to its fullest within those bounds.

Above you admitted that you don't know the questions (not to mention the answers), how then do you know that the premise that God does not exist is not false?

How do you know that life is precious?

[atlaw]

If you’re right that your God is the one to worship, then you’re good to go.

But, if you’re wrong, you’ve got one nasty surprise waiting for you.

Guillotine poker.

[Fichori]

If you’re right that your God is the one to worship, then you’re good to go.

But, if you’re wrong, you’ve got one nasty surprise waiting for you.

Guillotine poker.

Or perhaps Russian roulette.
Either way, irrational thinking when making such decisions is unwise.

[LeGrande]

Nowhere in the bible are believers commanded to be ignorant or unlearned.

No but they often are. People of the book run the gamut from very intelligent and learned to deliberately ignorant.

Above you admitted that you don't know the questions (not to mention the answers), how then do you know that the premise that God does not exist is not false?

It primarily depends on the definition of 'God.' The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative. The most surprising realization came when I discovered that there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled. I had a fortune telling grandmother that did a better job than any prophecy I have ever read. I would think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future.

The bottom line though is that it is impossible to predict the future. If there was someone out there who could consistently and accurately predict the future I probably would believe in God : ) There isn't and has never been someone like that.

[Fichori]

"No but they often are. People of the book run the gamut from very intelligent and learned to deliberately ignorant." [excerpt]

That is true of everybody, Atheists included.

"It primarily depends on the definition of 'God.' The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative. The most surprising realization came when I discovered that there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled. I had a fortune telling grandmother that did a better job than any prophecy I have ever read. I would think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future." [excerpt]

I agree that it is impossible to disprove a negative.
So the statement 'there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled' seems to be the logical fallacy of proving a negative.
Just because we might 'think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future', does not make it true.

"The bottom line though is that it is impossible to predict the future. If there was someone out there who could consistently and accurately predict the future I probably would believe in God : ) There isn't and has never been someone like that." [excerpt]

So if a man could predict the future you would probably believe in God?
What about the prophets recorded in the bible?
Are you proving the nonexistence of future prophets sent by God?

[LeGrande]

I agree that it is impossible to disprove a negative. So the statement 'there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled' seems to be the logical fallacy of proving a negative.

No a prophecy is definitive. It is a prediction that can be falsified. It either is or isn't, if it isn't it is falsified. What is so hard about that to understand?

Just because we might 'think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future', does not make it true.

True, why don't you define God so that we can quit going around in circles?

So if a man could predict the future you would probably believe in God? What about the prophets recorded in the bible?

Aren't prophets men? Isn't that how God speaks to man, through Prophets? Can you provide a single, clear definitive prophecy that has come to pass? Wouldn't that be a prerequisite for a prophet?

Are you proving the nonexistence of future prophets sent by God?

Based on the nonexistence of prophets in the past, yes.

[norton]

As of today, as of the recent republican primary season, and as of a result of far too much self righteous "my way or no way" bluster from one of the two factions:
I'm committed to happenstance and evolution as the ONLY source of life on earth today or ever.

No big deal, only one person.

Not due to any scientific argument, evidence, logic, or skills, but sealed by the following quote:
"Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed."

Prove to me that that quote is sarcasm and I'll think it over.

[Fichori]

You originally said "The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative."
(Error in my reply corrected below)

"I agree that it is impossible to disprove prove a negative. So the statement 'there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled' seems to be the logical fallacy of proving a negative."

"No a prophecy is definitive. It is a prediction that can be falsified. It either is or isn't, if it isn't it is falsified. What is so hard about that to understand?"

The statement to which you replied concerns the existance of 'clear prophecies that have been fulfilled'.
(Your reply changes the subject and addresses the content of prophesies, not their existence.)
You assert that 'there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled'.
That is asserting the non-existence of something, or, 'proving' a negative.

"True, why don't you define God so that we can quit going around in circles?"

I'm not the one going around in circles.

"Aren't prophets men? Isn't that how God speaks to man, through Prophets? Can you provide a single, clear definitive prophecy that has come to pass? Wouldn't that be a prerequisite for a prophet?"

The bible is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled, some of them even recently.
(Like the creation of the state of Israel)

And then there is that oh so familiar scripture:

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 12:39-40

Are you proving the nonexistence of future prophets sent by God?

Based on the nonexistence of prophets in the past, yes.

Can you prove that, because you have never seen me perform Handel's Messiah, I never will?

Remember what you said: "The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative."

Either you were wrong when you said 'it is impossible to prove a negative' or you are wrong about there never being any future prophets.
(Or it could be that your a relativist who doesn't believe in the law of non-contradiction.)

Whatever the case, Logic only works if True and False are contradictory and absolute.