[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Jeepers, but the author is a devoted acolyte of Darwin - beginning the second essay with his profession of faith that the theory of evolution is a physical law above the physical "laws" of Newton, i.e. that gravity is merely an "agent" of evolution.

He gets this attitude from Monism. We hear similar rhetoric today from evolutionists. They are also selling Monism. The difference is that Osborn and Loeb knew they were selling Monism. The evolutionists of today are mostly clueless about the origin of the ideologies that they so vehemently insist must be taught to unsuspecting people.

The Mechanistic Conception of Life, Jacques Loeb

Sir Karl Popper famously criticized Marx and Freud because their theories were unfalsifiable. And I suspect the same should be said of many if not most story tellers.

Yes, but Popper was himself a crackpot and his philosophy of science has done incalculable damage to people's brains, in my opinion. Here's some anti-Popper:

Four Modern Irrationalists, David Stove.

Obviously, Osborn's story is obsolete. And Szostak's story may end up becoming obsolete as well.

Well, the "stories" are probably ultimately the same, but as time goes on, they get more complex and more deeply buried under technical mumbo-jumbo. As soon as one story is trashed or refuted, a new one forms which is more difficult to analyze. So it gives more "life" to the fairytales, perhaps a few years worth or a decade worth. And when that one dies, another one comes along. In all of this, it is interesting to note that evolutionists seem not to remember the history of any of it. Whoever talks about the great evolutionists of yore? Does anyone mention Romanes and his biology of consciousness and the human soul? Or Huxley and his Bathybius? Or Haeckel and his life-from-crystals? It's like these guys never existed, in a sense. Who quotes Julian Huxley, except to ridicule and expose him as the totalitarian charlatan that he was? The old generation of Darwinians die off and nobody really gives a damn what they said. We have to listen to the new generation exclusively. They have the real truth, so we are told. Bah, where in science do you see the great scientists of the past (supposedly great, in this case) stricken from the obelisk this way?

There's a reason why. It's because evolutionists don't want people to know anything about the history of evolution or the history of evolution scientists. It's better forgotten, so that the old Monist fairytales can be recycled, along with other evils. Here look at this:

Creation by Evolution

Read the one on the evolution of amoebas: Can We See Evolution Occurring? How come all that proof of evolution right-before-your-eyes was forgotten? And does it not sound exactly like the more modern incarnation of the same fairytale, e.g., evolution of fruit-flies, bacteria, ring species, and so on?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and thank you for the links!

However, I dismiss David Stove out of hand. I could hardly take his criticism of Karl Popper seriously when the same man thinks that women (I am one) are intellectually inferior to men, i.e. he can hardly be rational on an individual man when he is irrational about men altogether.

Well, the "stories" are probably ultimately the same, but as time goes on, they get more complex and more deeply buried under technical mumbo-jumbo. As soon as one story is trashed or refuted, a new one forms which is more difficult to analyze. So it gives more "life" to the fairytales, perhaps a few years worth or a decade worth. And when that one dies, another one comes along. In all of this, it is interesting to note that evolutionists seem not to remember the history of any of it.

Indeed. The most damning episode had to be eugenics.

No doubt animal husbandry - breeding animals for specific traits - was prima facie evidence making Darwin's theory more intellectually acceptable at the time.

But that coin had two sides - whereas it strengthened the theory, it also strengthened the political or ideological desire to improve men by breeding or prevention of breeding.

And to a great extent eugenics continues today under the politically correct name of "family planning." Sarah Palin's decision not to abort her Down Syndrome son was seen as a bad decision by many liberals who want to improve men from womb to tomb (nanny state.)

"Useless eaters" and all that - and of course the logical next step, euthanasia and genetic engineering.

Same game plan as Hitler, different targets and methods, but the same objective.