Darwin’s natural selection runs the whole universe without evidence?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 10, 2014

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here at Scientific American if nowhere else.

The real criticism of cosmological natural selection as a scientific hypothesis is its lack of direct evidence at this point. There is no direct evidence that the universe reproduces. Without that, no natural selection, even before issues of variation and selection come into play. True enough. But keep in mind that from a direct evidence perspective, cosmological natural selection is no worse off at this point than proposed scientific alternatives. There is no direct evidence that universes are created by quantum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, that we live in a multiverse, that there is a theory of everything, or that string theory, cyclic universes or- brane cosmology even exist.

But now, at the end of science, evidence is an outdated idea anyway.

We fund whatever they dream up.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Comments

In one of Doug Futyuma's (sp) biology textbooks he spews that natural selection is the only mechanism known to produce adaptations and here are some adaptations (so NS must have produced them). That is evolutionary "science". Only materialistic solutions without supporting evidence can be considered science.Joe_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

The beauty of natural selection is that no evidence is required. It just has to be true.Mung_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

News, It's not often I agree with you, but on this occasion I do, at least partially. Actually, it's quite a nice change! The best that can be said for this is that it's a theory without any evidence to back it. I note that the publication carried a rider to the article that said the views were those of the author and not necessarily those of Scientific American.Henry Crun_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

Natural Selection doesn't even run 'finch beaks' much less the universe: Darwin's Finches Show Rule-Constrained Variation in Beak Shape - June 10, 2014 Excerpt: A simple yet powerful mathematical rule controls beak development, Harvard scientists find, while simultaneously preventing beaks from evolving into something else.,,, We find in Darwin's finches (and all songbirds) an internal system, controlled by a non-random developmental process. It is flexible enough to allow for variation, but powerful enough to constrain the beak to its basic form (a conical shape modulated by scaling and shear) so that the rest of the bird's structures are not negatively affected. Beak development is controlled by a decay process that must operate at a particular rate. It's all very precise, so much so that it could be modeled mathematically.,,, The very birds that have long been used as iconic examples of natural selection become, on closer examination, paragons of intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/darwins_finches086581.htmlbornagain77_{June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

There is a huge, almost schizophrenic, disconnect in the thinking of modern science. One the one hand scientists desperately want a 'theory of everything' to answer the question of why does the universe exist as it does. But on the other hand scientists (at least the scientists that popular media promotes) insist that the universe, and everything in it, exist for no reason in particular. This severe disconnect in reasoning can be seen in this following study,,
Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html
Thus atheistic scientists on the one hand tell us that the universe exists for no purpose or reason at all, but their actions, i.e. seeking the reason why the universe exists as it does, tells a very different story. Their actions indicate that they believe, deep down, that the universe does indeed exist for some ultimate reason and purpose. Professor Fuller put the disconnect in thinking this way:
In Cambridge, Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design - Video https://uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/ At 17:34 minute mark of the video, Dr. Steve Fuller states: "So you think of physics in search of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however mulrifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.",,, You see, there is sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,"
Of related note to this schizophrenic disconnect of atheists, assuming naturalism leads to the epistemological failure of science:
Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? - On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical - By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012 Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we'd be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false -- non-physical essences exist. But, what's their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can't be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we're just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all. http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012?offset=1&max=1 Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga) - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs? - January 2008 Excerpt: it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space.,, Alan Guth, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,,, pointed out that some calculations result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it “infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains.” Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us.,, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&8dpc
Moreover, there is a empirically backed 'theory of everything', a 'theory of everything' that does not fall into epistemological failure, a 'theory of everything' that gives resolution as to why the universe exists as it does and even why we exist in the universe:
General Relativity, Special Relativity, Heaven and Hell: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch
bornagain77_{June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

That there is an Evolutionist on steroids.ppolish_{June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply