Culture Darwinism News

New Scientist: Natural selection programmed us not to believe Darwin.

Spread the love

Nothing to do with the state of the evidence. Still, Ridley’s new evolution book maddens the reviewer:

From a New Scientist review of science writer Matt Ridley’s new book, The Evolution of Everything:

How a creationist instinct stops us seeing evolution everywhere

FOR most of history, humans were instinctive creationists. Faced with the intricate perfection of an eye or a wing, they jumped to the conclusion that it was designed by an intelligent creator, aka God. Then along came Darwin and proved the obvious wrong. The appearance of design is an illusion; biological order arises by slow, undirected trial-and-error coupled with natural selection, aka evolution.

Bu the evidence simply isn’t showing that Darwin’s mechanism Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation) produces the level of change his followers place their faith in. On the other hand, why should that matter? Ideas that big …

More.

The reason the New Scientist’s reviewer finds Ridley’s book “maddening” is certainly not because he doubts Darwin:

The Darwinian revolution is unfinished, says Ridley; like relativity, the theory of evolution should be considered a “special theory”, applicable only in the limited sphere of biological change. It needs to be extended to a “general theory”, which also applies to the human world.

The problem is that Ridley takes his Darwinism seriously; he is not a progressive. He does not think that the human race would evolve better if everyone had the imprint of the government’s boot permanently stamped on their faces.

But far worse, he says so.

The New Scientist crowd likes Darwinism only insofar as it enables that kind of thing while establishing their pop Darwinism as the only permitted view.

More rich stuff from the reviewer re Ridley:

Ridley’s is a fundamentalist world view that brooks no dissent; everything can be twisted or elided to support the argument. This seems lost on him, even as he gleefully skewers Freudianism and other pseudoscientific theories of the human condition

At least he wouldn’t make other views illegal. Maybe that too is one of his flaws?

If anyone is interested, here are evidence-based reasons not to believe Darwin’s followers, especially the skinny.

Note: Another sign that Darwinism is being shaken is these types of quarrels erupting between the Darwinists who take the logic seriously (Ridley) and those who just want the power of a progressive government to enforce their Darwin street theatre (New Scientist).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “New Scientist: Natural selection programmed us not to believe Darwin.

  1. 1
    Smidlee says:

    If the appearance of design is an illusion then the appearance of his book being designed must be an illusion as well.

    Every illusion I know of is ones that have been proven without a doubt. I don’t automatically assume something is an illusion unless some strong evidence to prove otherwise.

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    Are Humans unique in Nature in that they recognize Design? Not only recognize it – they DO it. The IPhone for example. Designer DNA another example http://www.lifenews.com/2015/0.....ssibility/

    Human Intelligently Designed plants and animals are already a reality. Man made in the image of the Alpha/Omega Designer.

    Someday, could Man intelligently design and then create life from a “primordial soup”? Isn’t Nature a sucker for design? Sure seems so.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Yes. even in this book it hints there is problems with evolutionism . Yet another book questioning something!
    One does not see evolution everywhere but instead sees biological change relative to its origin regarding some item.
    one does not see the process. Mankind always saw people in different looks from place to place but presumed it was bio changes from unknown reasons..
    Small changes would never do the deed that needed to be done.
    It had to be done quick.
    I don’t see evolution anywhere like what they talk about.
    In fact most of thier seeing is done in rocks of smushed bio in a moment of time.
    they don’t see evolution but dots. They connect the dots and imagine they see a moving truth. in fact its a unmoving fake cartoon of truth.
    And like cartoons only works because of failure of the memory to record the spaces in between fixed images.

  4. 4
    tjguy says:

    How a creationist instinct stops us seeing evolution everywhere

    Ha ha. I’ve got an idea. Let’s write the same article from a creationist perspective. So the title would be:

    How a Materialist instinct stops us from seeing design everywhere

    We could go further. The claim is made that

    Natural selection programmed us not to believe Darwin.”

    Never mind that you cannot test such a claim, but it could also be written like this:

    Natural selection programmed others TO believe in Darwin.

    If it goes one way, it goes the other. You can’t exempt your own views from the influence of natural selection. This fact alone shows just how ridiculous the Materialist worldview is. It undermines all knowledge. It says our thoughts are not trustworthy, but are simply the result of chemical secretions in our brain that are influenced by natural selection over time.

    Please!!! Enough of that anti-scientific anti-knowledge garbage!

    Just read the first 2 paragraphs of the link is enough to show any reasonable person the guy is way off and doesn’t understand science. Here it is:

    FOR most of history, humans were instinctive creationists. Faced with the intricate perfection of an eye or a wing, they jumped to the conclusion that it was designed by an intelligent creator, aka God.

    Then along came Darwin and proved the obvious wrong. The appearance of design is an illusion; biological order arises by slow, undirected trial-and-error coupled with natural selection, aka evolution.

    Just how did Darwin PROVE this? He doesn’t know what he is talking about! First of all, science cannot truly prove anything. Secondly, Darwin simply put forth a hypothesis and there is lots of data/evidence that does not fit his hypothesis. We still are waiting for experimental evidence that evolution can do what the Materialists claim it can.

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    Appearance of Design is spectacular as is Real Design. But while real design is hard, appearance of design is impossibly difficult. Which would Brother Occam chose?

Leave a Reply