Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021)

_{News
July 5, 2021

Darwinism, Naturalism

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
Naturalism}

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

Evolutionary biologist, perhaps best known for:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” at New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997), a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Random House)

We shall see.

Comments

Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860) Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.html
In other words, Darwin had failed to use the scientific method and produce any original experimental research that might support his theory. And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.” Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?- As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
And it was not as if Darwin himself was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book. Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857 My dear Gray, ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
Scientific Method Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/
In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method! And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true, In fact, (and as I elucidated at post 29), at practically every turn, the scientific evidence itself directly contradicts Darwin's theory. As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book, "Darwin, Then and Now", “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection. Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species. After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.” – ibid
It is also interesting to note what Francis Bacon himself considered to be the best evidence for the truthfulness of a 'theory'. Francis Bacon, (the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019 Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately? https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/
And in terms of 'fruits produced', Darwinian evolution has been, to put it mildly, a bust. In so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle in biological science i.e. as a heuristic, it has grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, and wildly inaccurate predictions, such as its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, eugenics, etc.. etc… Moreover, in society at large, the 'fruits produced' by Darwinian evolution have been far worse than they have been for the biological sciences.
In fact, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced in their murderous political philosophies by Darwinian ideology. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831 Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
In short, and in conclusion, Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, based on the scientific method, and in so far as 'fruits produced' criteria of Francis Bacon himself, (to determine whether a philosophy is true or not), Darwinian evolution, by the unfathomably horrid misery that it has caused mankind, is shown to be a grievously false philosophy. Darwinism, both scientifically and politically, has been a complete disaster for mankind that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

In drawing the fact out that Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience that is NOT based on the scientific method, it is interesting to note that when Darwin first published his theory that many prominent scientists of his day roundly criticized Darwin for not using the scientific method. In making this point clear, it is first necessary to point out the fact that the scientific method itself is based on inductive reasoning, and is not based on the deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks. Inductive reasoning, i.e. Repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, (who, by the way, was a devout Christian), has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And inductive reasoning has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.
Francis Bacon, 1561–1626 Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water. https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html
And it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning, (i.e. repeated experimentation), over and above deductive reasoning, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory. As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book "Darwin, Then and Now", Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected. Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/
i.e. Darwinists, in very large measure, still cling to the deductive form of reasoning of the Ancient Greeks. Which, as far as science itself in concerned, is an inherently flawed form of reasoning in which Darwinists pronounce on how the world should behave, (via their major premise of atheistic naturalism), with insufficient 'experimental' attention being given to how the world does in fact behave. As Henry Schaefer explained, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415
“Bottom up” inductive reasoning is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks , (and of modern Darwinists).
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg Inductive reasoning Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one’s experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3] Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Darwinists, in their deductive form of reasoning, (and as Lewontin himself made clear), simply assume atheistic naturalism to be true, and never allow the empirical evidence itself to question their a-priori assumption, and/or premise, of atheistic naturalism. As Lewontin himself stated, "that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, (which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, and where empirical evidence is allowed to lead us to a 'probable' truth), was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’. In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016 Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was actually championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive reasoning, (where one’s priori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE
And to repeat, it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning, over and above deductive reasoning, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory.bornagain77_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 27 -
ID is not a science like geology, astronomy, biology etc.
On this we can agree. After all, geology, astronomy, biology etc. are making progress.
Aside: tell me one thing that ID has got wrong.
Its models of evolution. The basic argument is "evolution can't do this, therefore design", but it fails to use actual models of evolution. Instead it uses a non-sensical model, and smuggles in an infinite number of fitness surfaces to try to justify this. Querius @ 28 -
Nicely explained, but I think Bob O’H has already accepted the nonsensical position that ID is competing with sciences, such as geology or physics.
In what sense do you mean competing?
He doesn’t understand that ID is the presumption of design while Darwinism presumes anything that’s not fully understood must be random “junk” (such as “junk” DNA).
I understand that ID presumes design, but your statement about "Darwinism" is wrong, whether you meant Darwinism or modern evolutionary biology. Things that are not fully understood are things to be investigated further - they are problems to be solved. That's the way a real science works. ba77 @ 29 -
I assume that the ‘most of us’ that Bob is referring to are his fellow Darwinian naturalists/atheists in academia.
Fellow scientists, many (most?) of whom are Christian.
To put it mildly, Bob, and his fellow Darwinian atheists, would not know real science if it bit them on the rear end.
Err, right. How would you know what science is?
And ID is easily falsifiable, All one has to do is just violate the “Law of Conservation of Information”,
If you ever did Philosophy of Science 101, you would know why this isn't a valid argument. Of course, if you had done Philosophy of Science 101, you wouldn't be using Popper's demarcation criterion. Jack @ 30 -
Sure, the darwin priesthood that has a strangle hold on academia naturally thinks outsiders are cultists.
And your priesthood are Discovery Institute Fellows. Science is a big tent, and I can't see why ID couldn't join us. But it would mean doing science - developing theories, doing experiments, being open to criticism etc. When I started following ID about 15 years ago, it looks like it was in a Kuhnian "pre-science" phase: flapping around trying to find a paradigm, i.e. a theoretical framework to work in. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have advanced. There are ideas, like the information stuff, but that doesn't get connected up to any empirical results in any meaningful sense.
Bob O'H_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description. Mere rhetoric. Sure, the darwin priesthood that has a strangle hold on academia naturally thinks outsiders are cultists. What you're saying is like the Roman Catholic Magisterium saying, "I appreciate that you might not like the description of Protestantism as heresy, but for most of us it is an accurate description."Jack_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Bob states, "I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description." I assume that the 'most of us' that Bob is referring to are his fellow Darwinian naturalists/atheists in academia. How convenient of him to reference his own personal little echo chamber as an authority on what constitutes real science and what constitutes pseudoscience. To put it mildly, Bob, and his fellow Darwinian atheists, would not know real science if it bit them on the rear end. Contrary to what Bob apparently believes, science itself is certainly not a 'natural' and/or "material", endeavor of man. As the following article succinctly states the dilemma facing atheistic materialists, in regards to their claim that science presupposes naturalism. "The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy."
Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012 ?Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic. ?http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/?
If Bob can not see the glaring, irresolvable, dilemma for his atheistic naturalism in the fact that the scientific method itself cannot be reduced to any possible naturalistic explanation, then there really is not much hope for him is there?. He simply is blinded by his Darwinian atheism and is impervious to reason. The simplest way to demonstrate that ID is science and that Darwinian evolution is pseudoscience, is by Popper's criteria of falsification. As stated previously,
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
And ID is easily falsifiable, All one has to do is just violate the "Law of Conservation of Information", (Dembski, Marks Ewert)
Evolutionary Informatics https://evoinfo.org/publications.html The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - 2011 Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.",,, Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility. http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered by Perry Mashall and company for the first person, or team, who can falsify Intelligent Design and prove that unguided material processes can produce a code.
Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution - January 2020 Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at www.evo2.org. https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
As Perry Marshall succinctly stated elsewhere, "“Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” Whereas, on the other hand, Darwinian evolution has no discernible falsification criteria so as to differentiate it from a pseudoscience. i.e. To demonstrate that it "speaks about reality" as Popper himself put it. As Denis Noble stated, "it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it (Darwinian evolution) is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble - Oxford - Professor Emeritus and co-Director of Computational Physiology. https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
And In 1967 Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution 'cannot be refuted by any possible observations' and is thus “outside empirical science.”
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” - Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
And that statement by Ehrlich is not hyperbole by any stretch. Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science instead of a pseudoscience’. As Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor explained, "Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. ,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
There is much more that could be said in regards to Darwinian evolution being a pseudoscience, rather that a real science, but suffice it for now to say that Darwinian evolution is not even worthy to tie the shoelaces of Intelligent Design in regards to ID being a 'real', and testable, scientific theory.bornagain77_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Jerry @27, Nicely explained, but I think Bob O'H has already accepted the nonsensical position that ID is competing with sciences, such as geology or physics. He doesn't understand that ID is the presumption of design while Darwinism presumes anything that's not fully understood must be random "junk" (such as "junk" DNA). ID accepts scientific data at face value, such as the carbon-14 tests on dinosaur tissue but does not presume more poorly understood non-coding DNA is random junk. So, when Darwinists parade a list of over 100 "vestigial" organs in the early 20th century, they should be embarrassed that this list has now dwindled down to approximately 0. But they're not, and no amount of data will change their minds. -QQuerius_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description.
ID is not a science like geology, astronomy, biology etc. It’s a set of conclusions using all of science (evidence) and logic to the best explanation for what science has uncovered. As of this moment science has no explanation for how evolution occurred. Their current explanation involves DNA which is obviously a non starter. For most of science’s conclusions, ID will agree with the conclusions of science but not all. So to call ID a pseudoscience is a major misnomer based on ignorance. Especially when those making the false accusations are themselves promulgating false conclusions and thus promoting a pseudoscience. Aside: tell me one thing that ID has got wrong.jerry_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
if there is overwhelming evidence, where is it?
In everything wikipedia says about ID. You may disagree but then again you are part of the problem. And a clueless part at that.ET_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Earth to Bob O'H- Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. ID is about the DESIGN, Bob. ID makes predictions about the DESIGN, Bob. And ID is NOT anti-evolution, Bob. You don't have a clue. If you and yours had anything then most likely ID would be a non-starter. Yours is the pseudo-science position. You can't say what blind and mindless processes predict. You are just a hypocrite. Sad that you don't even realize it. And finally, science does not start with any conclusion, ie naturalistic processes. The debate is telic versus blind and mindless. And you have already lost. You and yours should be scientifically investigating the ability of blind and mindless processes to do as you claim. The mechanism of differential accumulations of genetic changes is IMPOTENT with respect to universal common descent. That is what scientific investigation has uncovered. And you just ignore that. Pathetic, really.ET_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

ba77 - I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description. If it were an actual science then it would be making predictions about the designer (i.e. it would have a positive heuristic), i.e. it would say more than "evolution can't do this". It would also have internalised methodological naturalism, i.e. even if it felt that the designer was not material, it would be using naturalism to try to scientifically investigate the designer (non-scientific investigations can of course be done without this assumption).Bob O'H_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Contrary to what Lewontin, (and Bob), believe, the naturalistic assumption of Darwinian evolution is simply not required for doing biological science.
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” – Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005
That Methodological Naturalism, or more specifically Darwinian evolution, is NOT required for doing biological science is fairly easy to prove. Specifically, it is found that the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations can easily be removed from research papers without negatively affecting the actual science of the papers, whereas teleological, i.e. design, language cannot be removed from research papers without severely compromising the integrity of the papers.
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? - December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/ “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. August 2020 - Biologists Can’t Stop Using Purpose-Driven Language Because Life Really Is Designed Excerpt: “Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. It is the teleological character of life which makes it a unique phenomenon requiring a unique discipline of study distinct from physics or chemistry.” https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
Verse:
Matthew 12:37 “For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
In short, and in conclusion, the claim from wikipedia, (via atheistic trolls who guard wikipedia as if their life depended on it), that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, is a patently false claim that is completely opposite from the truth of the matter. The truth is that it is Atheistic naturalism itself that is the pseudoscientific religion that drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.bornagain77_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

at 15 Bob tries to maintain that wikipedia is somehow neutral with regards to ID. That is laughable, .For instance, here are Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer's entries on wikipedia,
Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).[2][3] William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,[1] Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God,[1][2] presented with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory".[3][4]
And here is the entry on Intelligent Design itself.
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6]
The interesting thing about atheistic trolls, via wikipedia, falsely, and repeatedly, claiming that ID is a pseudoscience is that it is the unwavering assumption of naturalism, which Lewontin himself championed, which turns out to be pseudoscience. i.e. "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated." As should be needless to say, such a dogmatic a-priori assumption of what answers are allowed is against the very spirit of the scientific method itself. A 'spirit' of open enquiry and a willingness to follow the scientific evidence wherever it may lead. Indeed, such an a-priori materialistic assumption, before any evidence has even been weighed, is downright anti-science. Such a dogmatic assumption basically makes atheistic naturalism impervious to falsification.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” - Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Lewontin, and other atheists, are basically undermining the entire scientific enterprise itself by dictating what answers they are willing to accept from science beforehand. As should be needless to say, this is NOT science, but is a form of dogmatic Atheistic Naturalism trying to take over science by dictatorial philosophical decree, i.e. they have falsely 'decreed' that only their atheistic/naturalistic answers are allowed beforehand. i.e, 'methodological naturalism'. Others who are not so enamored with their nihilistic atheistic religion have every right to ask them, 'Says who? YOU???" Moreover, far from Intelligent Design being a 'pseudoscience', as atheists have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed, the very practice of science itself is based upon the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism as atheists have repeatedly and falsely claimed. In the first chapter of his new book, 'Return of the God hypothesis', Stephen Meyer goes over the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science,
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions 1 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893 2 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959 3 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980
Moreover, these necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at there founding of modern science did not just evaporate into thin air because of some atheistic 'dictatorial decree' of methodological naturalism, but these Judeo-Christian presuppositions are still very much required for the continued practice and success of modern science.
Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf
Far from science being based on the assumption of methodological naturalism, (as atheists falsely, repeatedly, and self-servingly, claim), all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is instead based on the presupposition of intelligent design. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare to understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Moreover, assuming methodological naturalism as being true beforehand, (as atheists try to dictate that we do before any scientific evidence has even been looked at), drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure. For instance, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
And here is a detailed defense of each the preceding claims https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 7 – if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?
Sounds like an appeal to authority to me . . . -QQuerius_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Querius - I didn't bring up whether Wikipedia was a reliable source in academia. you're confusing me with ba77, which is (I'm sure) rather embarrassing for both of us.Bob O'H_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @7, 13, and Jerry @17, Thanks for the well-researched responses! Sorry, Bob O'H, Wikipedia is routinely rejected as a legitimate source in academia. Since you brought it up, why don't you instead demonstrate that academia indeed recognizes that Wikipedia is authoritative rather than giving Bornagain77 and ET homework assignments that you then simply reject out of hand? -QQuerius_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

ET - if there is overwhelming evidence, where is it? I'm sure ba77 would like to know too.Bob O'H_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

An extremely long article by one of the founders of Wikipedia critical of it’s objectivity appeared yesterday. https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ ID or evolution will not be mentioned in such a piece. It’s too far down the list of topics that anyone cares about but maybe someone should point out the falsehoods in Wikipedia about ID. From Wikipedia and obviously false
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science
I’m sure it would not be hard to show hundreds of falsehoods by Wikipedia about ID or evolution. So it’s hardly likely a quote favorable to ID would make the Lewontin bio and survive. Wikipedia is an outstanding source for non controversial facts. For example, what are the songs in a specific Broadway musical or how many people does a specific county have. But if either threatened a worldview of the left, they would be gone.jerry_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Wow. The overwhelming evidence says that wikipedia is anti-ID, Bob. Evidence, Bob. That is what has you so confused.ET_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

ba77 - neither of the posts about Wikipedia being anti-ID would be NPOV, would they? They show that some people think that Wikipedia is anti-ID, but not that it actually is.Bob O'H_{July 7, 2021
July
07
Jul
7
07
2021
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?
1- No materialist would ever edit that in. 2- Not one materialist would allow it to stay.ET_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

[citation needed]
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 ?Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight.?You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – David Klinghoffer – October 10, 2017 Excerpt: Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.,,, ,,, It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested, to be ruled upon by a 23-year-old “boy” and 500-year-old wizard called “Jo-Jo.” Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/ Wikipedia: where truth dies online - April 2014 Excerpt: Wikipedia has been a massive success but has always had immense flaws, the greatest one being that nothing it publishes can be trusted. This, you might think, is a pretty big flaw. There are over 21 million editors with varying degrees of competence and honesty. Rogue editors abound and do not restrict themselves to supposedly controversial topics,,, Sock puppets are a big problem for Wikipedia because so many of its editors are anonymous. This makes it almost impossible to verify bona fide users. Wikipedia literally has no idea who many of its editors are. ,,, One columnist for The Times has likened Wikipedia’s reliance on consensus ahead of accuracy to an interminable political meeting with the end result dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist writing for an online publication, Edge, described Wikipedia as a ‘hive mind’ that is ‘for the most part stupid and boring’. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/wikipedia-where-truth-dies-online/14963#.U2KB0Vc9iSq Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. - December 1, 2016 Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted. I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed." In a response Mr. Sanger stated: "For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…" There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/
Wikipedia itself admits that it is not a reliable source
Wikipedia: Academic use Excerpt: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.[1][2][3] Many[4] colleges and universities (especially in some high schools and private schools) have a policy that prohibits students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or anything equivalent. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
Also of related interest:
Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality. Scott Minnich Richard Sternberg Günter Bechly Eric Hedin Don McDonald David Coppedge Caroline Crocker Bryan Leonard Martin Gaskell Dean Kenyon Roger DeHart Granville Sewell https://freescience.today/stories/ Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/
bornagain77_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

I don’t know Bob, do you think it might have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that wikipedia is heavily biased against Intelligent Design?
[citation needed]Bob O'H_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H asks, "if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?" And you really have no clue as to exactly why wikipedia would fail to mention that? :) I don't know Bob, do you think it might have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that wikipedia is heavily biased against Intelligent Design? For a more fair metric as to how far Lewontin's quote has penetrated popular culture, I suggest you take the first line of the quote, google it, and see how many results you get back. I got 2,910,000 results back. For comparison, I only got 286,000 results back when I googled "Lewontin population genetics"bornagain77_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Sorry, Marfin, can you explain that. I have no idea what you're referring to.Bob O'H_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Bob O H- Sorry Bob I never realised that you have to be well know for something, for it to be true.Marfin_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 7 - if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn't even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?Bob O'H_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H objects that Lewontin's fairly well known quote is not what Lewontin is best known for and that what he is best known for is "his actual science (e.g. the Spandrels paper, and his work in population genetics)." Perhaps in the academic ivory tower that Bob O'H resides in that is what Lewontin is best known for. Yet in popular culture, especially on websites debating Intelligent Design and evolution, (such as the one that Bob is commenting on right now), Lewontin is almost exclusively known for his rather candid quote about atheists dogmatically adhering to naturalistic explanations in the face of any and all contrary evidence. Moreover, I hold that Lewontin's 'actual science' in population genetics and spandrels underscores Lewontin's rather candid quote about atheists dogmatically adhering to naturalistic explanations in the face of any and all contrary evidence. When we look up Lewontin on wikipedia, here are a few excerpts that we find, as to his 'actual science'
Richard Lewontin - (March 29, 1929 – July 4, 2021) Excerpts: Lewontin opposed genetic determinism. Work in population genetics,,, In 1966, he and J. L. Hubby published a paper that revolutionized population genetics,,, Lewontin and Hubby's paper also discussed the possible explanation of the high levels of variability by either balancing selection or neutral mutation. Although they did not commit themselves to advocating neutrality, this was the first clear statement of the neutral theory for levels of variability within species.,,, Critique of mainstream evolutionary biology,,, Lewontin and Gould introduced the term spandrel to evolutionary biology, inspired by the architectural term "spandrel", in an influential 1979 paper, "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme." "Spandrels" were described as features of an organism that exist as a necessary consequence of other (perhaps adaptive) features, but do not directly improve fitness (and thus are not necessarily adaptive).[16] The relative frequency of spandrels versus adaptations continues to stir controversy in evolutionary biology.,,, Lewontin has long been a critic of traditional neo-Darwinian approaches to adaptation.,,, Lewontin has said that his more general, technical criticism of adaptationism grew out of his recognition that the fallacies of sociobiology reflect fundamentally flawed assumptions of adaptiveness of all traits in much of the modern evolutionary synthesis.,,, Lewontin accused neo-Darwinists of telling Just-So Stories when they try to show how natural selection explains such novelties as long-necked giraffes.,,, As well, Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist, ,,, ,,, He was an atheist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
So we find that Lewontin's 'actual science' in population genetics and spandrels, in fact, undermined the modern evolutionary synthesis and/or Neo-Darwinism. And even, via his neutral theory, eventually undermined natural selection as being a major player in evolution. And yet, even though Lewontin's 'actual science' did much to undermine neo-Darwinian evolution, (the modern synthesis) as a whole, Lewontin himself, (and contrary to common sense), clung to naturalistic evolutionary explanations rather than ever rejecting his atheistic naturalism.. Which is to say, his 'actual science' pointed away from naturalistic explanations, but his a-priori adherence to atheistic naturalism prevented him from ever following the 'actual science' to where it was actually leading. Moreover, when we click on the link explaining Lewontin's rejection of genetic determinism, we find,
Playing God Excerpt: What would Lewontin put in the place of biological determinism? Free will? No. He advocates for two-factor determinism, genes plus environment. "We must insist that a full understanding of the human condition demands an integration of the biological and the social in which neither is given primacy or ontological priority over the other." He is not replacing genetic determinism with social determinism, just adding the latter to the former. He combines the two. What he wants to avoid is a social philosophy that says: if human nature is fixed by our genes, then we cannot change society. Instead he rallies us for social change. He advocates social reform. And he wants a science that will support social advance. "Natural' is not fixed. Nature can be changed according to nature"3 https://books.google.com/books?id=OwtIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48#v=onepage&q&f=false
HUH??? "Nature can be changed according to nature”??? So Lewontin, a professor at Harvard no less, in his rejection of free will, was apparently reduced to babbling incoherent, and self-refuting, nonsense about nature changing nature. It is a crying shame that a professor at Harvard would be reduced to uttering such self-refuting nonsense simply because he refused to ever give up his atheistic naturalism. So again, I hold that Lewontin's 'actual science' underscores the quote that Richard Lewontin is most famous for making, and his 'actual science' certainly does not detract away one iota from his 'infamous' quote about atheists dogmatically clinging to naturalistic explanations no matter what the evidence says to the contrary..
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin
bornagain77_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

There is a Foot in the door right now. It's complex specified information in the form of biological information and universal fine-tuning information. The door is heavy, though.MikeW_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

At least he was honest. We won't get that from the likes of the anti-ID whiners posting here.ET_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Travel well dear sir in the beyond.kairosfocus_{July 6, 2021
July
07
Jul
6
06
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply