Culture Darwinism Science

Big Darwin will go down fighting (again)

Spread the love

Further to the Arizona State U study author’s demand for “acceptance” rather than mere “understanding” of evolution, two thoughts:

1. The difference between “accept” and “understand” becomes quite clear when we turn away from Darwinism and look instead at a fact-based field. Let’s say, sterile procedure in the operating room.

One doesn’t really care whether health care personnel “accept” sterile procedure, as long as they understand and follow it. Indeed, “acceptance” is valueless by itself.

It is in fact counterproductive by itself: Bimbette Fluffarelli, popular host on Airhead TV, knows that “evolution is true,” with a fervour that would shame Jerry Coyne. Fortunately for her (and everyone), she has never had to think about it.

Brownell frets about a lack of “acceptance” because her goal is to make the science curriculum just so many little spouts for propaganda for “evolution” or whatever else forms and inspires her worldview.

That’s continuous with current demands for criminalization of dissent and elimination of conventional statements of uncertainty from textbooks on climate change issues.

It’s not so much that science loses as that it quietly ceases to be science. It’s the guff that gets the job. Facts optional.

2. This problem is becoming critical now that many sources are rethinking evolution to take evidence into account.

The hardest thing to get across to people raised on Darwinism is that it is not a mechanism but rather a metaphysic. It tells us that evolution has no ultimate goal, something only a metaphysic can do.

Horizontal gene transfer and symbiosis, by contrast, are mechanisms of evolution. They do not tell us whether evolution has an ultimate goal; they are descriptions of observed events.

That’s where the science is today, and Darwinists are just going to have to get used to it. But not very quietly or willingly, we can be sure. – Denyse O’Leary

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “Big Darwin will go down fighting (again)

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    Science is the enemy of error, eventually, in issues based on natures evidence.
    So is the big conclusions of evolution are wrong IT MUST BE that there is no worthy, or any, evidence for evolution!!
    An equation here.
    Since evolution is about biological processes then the evidence for evolution must be based on biology. NAY on biology processes.
    I bet they have none.
    I know they don’t show any.
    i know they rely, place faith, in subjects under the heading of cOMPARITIVENESS.
    Genetics, fossils, anatomy, biogeography and so on.
    its all based on comparing biological data points and assuming the processes connecting them.
    YET never are the processes backed up with evidence.
    its just guessing about the middle between the front and the back.
    ID folks struggle with this also.
    Biology process origins must be proven by biology processes evidence.
    Everyone having eyeballs is not bio sci evidence for a common descent from a eyeball ancestor.
    its just a line of reasoning. Not science.

Leave a Reply