At Evolution News: There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution”

_{Eric Hedin

November 12, 2022

Evolution, Naturalism}

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

Photo: Galápagos finch, by kuhnmi, via Flickr.

What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right?
Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation.
Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature.
So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one.

Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on.
But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now.
There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.
Evolution News

Comments

@73
13. 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!
Nonsense. Truth is a property of sentences: a sentence is true if it corresponds to reality. Sentence are concrete particulars that get their sense from their inferential relationships with each other. Hence truth-as-correspondence is a relation between two systems of concrete particulars: the inferential network of sentences on the one hand, and the causal network of events and processes in the world.
14. Darwinists, 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 are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Again, nonsense. The idea that evolutionary theory presupposes teleology (and hence cannot explain it) is a minority view, but it's gaining ground. (See "Teleology and Its Constitutive Role in Biology</a?") More importantly, teleology is no threat to naturalism. See Organisms, Agency, and Evolution by Walsh, "The Organism as Subject and Object of Evolution" by Levins and Lewontin, or "What Makes Biological Organisation Teleological?"PyrrhoManiac1_{November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

@73
Since you are, in effect, saying that atheistic evolution is easily falsifiable, perhaps you can point me to the exact falsification criteria that could potentially falsify one, or both, of the “gene-centric (or the) organism-centric approaches to evolutionary theory”?
This is not a good paraphrase of what I was saying. I was saying rather this: Hunter claims that evolutionary theorists are willing to give up anything as long as "atheistic naturalism" remains a doctrinal commitment. And that is sheer nonsense. The debate between gene-centered and organism-centered approaches to evolutionary theory has nothing at all to do with atheism. It's just apples and oranges. Hunter is utterly confused. As for Popper and falsificationism: it's been fairly well dissected amongst philosophers of science that Popper's philosophy of science is a mistake. There are a few problems with it. Firstly, Popper comes up with falsification because he sees no solution the problem of induction. And in one sense, he's right: the problem of induction in the simplest form cannot be solved. But Popper should have read more Peirce. If he had, he would have realized that we need to understand abduction, deduction, and induction as all playing distinct but important roles in reasoning. (Aside: since Popper thought that induction is a hopeless endeavor, it is a bit odd to see you championing both Popper and Bacon. They are on opposite sides of the question!) Second, Popper's conjecture-and-refutation model doesn't work. For one thing, it doesn't allow for the seemingly plausible idea that some conjectures are more reasonable than others. For another, it doesn't allow for the possibility that any conjecture can survive falsification if you add more ad hoc corollaries to the initial conjecture. Example: If hypothesis H deductively entails observation O1, and we don't observe O1, just add a corollary H2 to the initial hypothesis. (This is what happened with medieval astronomy and the various epicycles!) Eventually that all became far too cumbersome to use and we know what happened next. But Popper doesn't allow us to say that what the medieval astronomers were doing was unreasonable or not good science. So, Popper is not my favorite philosopher of science. I prefer Peirce, and also like Lakatos's distinction between progressive and regressive research programs.PyrrhoManiac1_{November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

BA77: You do realize that just confirms the thesis of the OP do you not? i.e. Everything within Darwinian theory is forfeitable save for atheistic naturalism itself. PMI: That’s sheer nonsense. Once you realize that Svensson is only referring to the lively debate between gene-centric and organism-centric approaches to evolutionary theory (that’s what all of his links point to, if one actually read them!), it becomes abundantly clear that Hunter is utterly mistaken.
"Sheer nonsense"? Really??? Since you are, in effect, saying that atheistic evolution is easily falsifiable, perhaps you can point me to the exact falsification criteria that could potentially falsify one, or both, of the "gene-centric (or the) organism-centric approaches to evolutionary theory"? i.e. Falsify one or both in one fell swoop so as to establish one, or both, of them as being scientific instead of being "metaphysical research programs'?
"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 Popper Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ “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 https://afdave.wordpress.com/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/ 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 - President of International Union of Physiological Sciences https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
From my years of debating Darwinian atheists here on UD, it has been my experience thus far that there simply is no empirical evidence that they will ever accept as an empirical falsification of their theory. i.e. thus "Everything within Darwinian theory is forfeitable save for atheistic naturalism itself",,, that is, as far as I can tell, very much a valid claim. For instance, here are a few falsifications of Darwinian theory that I have compiled from my years of debating Darwinian atheists. Falsifications that Darwinian atheists simply ignore as if they do not matter to the scientific validity of their, ahem, "theory",
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. 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 be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. 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. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. 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 the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the 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). 6. 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. 7. 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.” 8. 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 modern versions of it.” 9. 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’. 10. 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! 11. 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!. 12. 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. 13. 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! 14. Darwinists, 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 are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Darwinism vs. Falsification - links to defense of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

@64
So, are you asserting that Gödel’s theorems are restricted to Peano Arithmetic? If so, you might want to review section 1.2.2 of the following article
Thank you for that suggestion -- it does appear that the incompleteness theorems have a wider scope than just the Peano axioms.
“Scientific facts” seem to be limited to a subset of measured data. Pretty much all else that we think we know consists of logical or speculative interpretations to varying degrees of likelihood. In quantum mechanics, the illustrious Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder often complains about the surfeit of speculation amid the dearth of data. In contrast, “truths” presumably transcend mere data and usually include unstated assumptions and context, and are subject to debate. Let me suggest that pretty much everything we generally hold in highest esteem is accessible only poorly, if at all, to science.
I think there's something to this, but I would phrase it differently, and that difference might matter -- or it could just be a semantic quibble. I quite agree that there all scientific facts are facts of measurement: of rates, duration, distance, energies, etc. So there are no scientific facts about whatever it is that we do not know how to measure. And I agree that much of what matters to us most, in our efforts to live virtuous and satisfactory lives in harmony with others, involves very little that can be objectively measured in that way. @65
You do realize that just confirms the thesis of the OP do you not? i.e. Everything within Darwinian theory is forfeitable save for atheistic naturalism itself.
That's sheer nonsense. Once you realize that Svensson is only referring to the lively debate between gene-centric and organism-centric approaches to evolutionary theory (that's what all of his links point to, if one actually read them!), it becomes abundantly clear that Hunter is utterly mistaken. @66
Would you agree that Karl Marx’s antipathy toward Christianity was more personal than social?
I would not compare one of Douglass's more mature, wise, and reflective statements with a bit of Marx's youthful exuberance. I wrote lots of bad poetry when I was 19 years old, too. (Though Douglass was only 27 when he wrote his autobiography!) Anything else I were to say about Marx would take us even further off-course from our main topic of conversation. @67
Kids going to school expect to be told the truth about every subject. That means they want to trust their teachers who, in turn, want to trust the contributors to the textbooks they use.
In my limited experience as a college teacher, I would say that students just care about doing well on standardized tests, because everyone tells them that that's all that matters. They don't believe what they recite on the tests, and more often than not they don't even retain it. A few years ago I had a reasonably bright student who knew nothing about the American Revolution. She admitted that she was exposed to the subject in school, took a test on it, did well on the test, and retained absolutely nothing.PyrrhoManiac1_{November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Seversky/79 Monte Python--I like it. There used to be a commentor on this site that kept referring to me as the Black Knight from the Holy Grail. I don't recall who it was, but it was amusing in any event......chuckdarwin_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

No Q, no issues here.bornagain77_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Seversky @68, Nope, not me. I've got Malwarebytes operational, which has saved me several times, but no issues with the Stanford website. Anyone else? -QQuerius_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Querius/64
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
Anyone else getting a privacy error when clicking on this link?
Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from plato.stanford.edu (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID This server could not prove that it is plato.stanford.edu; its security certificate is from ramsey.stanford.edu. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.
Seversky_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Ba77, Unguided evolution persists because the marketing campaign for it persists. Including on this site. Kids going to school expect to be told the truth about every subject. That means they want to trust their teachers who, in turn, want to trust the contributors to the textbooks they use. But, in order to control what the masses think, those who prefer them to think a certain way can and will distort the truth and even teach falsehood. For example: Evolution - nothing made you. The common story being the assumption that given a planet, any planet, once the conditions necessary for life exist, life will appear. This is fiction. There is no factual evidence for this. Intelligent Design - Someone made you. As more and more information is published about the actual inner workings of living things, it is apparent that blind, unguided evolution had neither the time or "desire" to go in any particular direction.relatd_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @62, Off topic, but I can't resist a reply.
I sometimes wonder if Marx would have been more charitable towards religion if he had had more experience with people of faith who side with the powerless and vulnerable. It’s easy to see Marx’s point when we consider someone like Pat Robertson, but much harder to agree with Marx when we consider someone like Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King, Jr.
Consider the contrast between the attitudes and perspectives toward Christianity of Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass. In his 1845 book, Life of an American Slave, Frederick Douglass wrote
What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.
And here's a poem written by Karl Marx:
Invocation of One in Despair So a god has snatched from me my all In the curse and rack of Destiny. All his worlds are gone beyond recall! Nothing but revenge is left to me! On myself revenge I'll proudly wreak, On that being, that enthroned Lord, Make my strength a patchwork of what's weak, Leave my better self without reward! I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be. For its bulwark-- superstitious dread, For its Marshall--blackest agony. Who looks on it with a healthy eye, Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb; Clutched by blind and chill Mortality May his happiness prepare its tomb. And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound From that massive iron giant. If he bring my walls and towers down, Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.
Would you agree that Karl Marx's antipathy toward Christianity was more personal than social? -QQuerius_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

PMI "Of the signatories to that “third way”, I know something of the work by Noble, Jablonka, and Newman. They certainly don’t think that the Modern Synthesis is sufficient to explain evolution, but they also don’t think that evolution was “guided” in the sense that theistic evolutionists and some design theorists do." You do realize that just confirms the thesis of the OP do you not? i.e. Everything within Darwinian theory is forfeitable save for atheistic naturalism itself.
Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Cornelius Hunter https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-evolution-news-there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
In other words, evolution, for all practical purposes, can't be falsified by experimental evidence and is, therefore, not even to be considered a scientific theory.
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 Popper
Of related note:
Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin – April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology. “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.” https://world.wng.org/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_publics_doubt_of_darwin Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism - Stephen C. Meyer - April 25, 2014 Excerpt: in Chapters 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt, I addressed six new (that is, post neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution -- theories that proposed new mechanisms to either supplement or replace the reliance upon mutation and natural selection in neo-Darwinian theory.,, I show that, although several of these new evolutionary theories offer some intriguing advantages over the orthodox neo-Darwinian model, they too fail to offer adequate explanations for the origin of the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to account for new forms of animal life -- such as those that arise in the Cambrian period. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/lynn_margulis_e084871.html Darwin's Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem - video - The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to 'make up' for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iREO1h4h-GU&index=10&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t Time for serious pursuit of post-Darwinian theory, says new BIO-Complexity paper - December 15, 2014 Excerpt: The insights we gain from the critique of neo-Darwinism can and should inform the construction of a new theory to take its place. That is, in pinpointing the key problems with the old theory we are identifying crucial respects in which its replacement must differ from it. We ourselves have become convinced that intelligent causation is essential as a starting point for any successful theory of biological innovation. If this is so, what is needed now is an elaboration of the general principles by which living things have been designed. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/time-for-serious-pursuit-of-post-darwinian-theory-says-new-bio-complexity-paper/
bornagain77_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @62,
I think that this obscures a very important difference. Gödel proved that any formal language that could express the Peano axioms for arithmetic cannot be complete: it must contain true propositions that cannot be proved using the axioms of that language.
So, are you asserting that Gödel’s theorems are restricted to Peano Arithmetic? If so, you might want to review section 1.2.2 of the following article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
Whether or not there are truths that cannot be verified by scientific means is, of course, an interesting and important question. I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. But I don’t think that one could establish as a scientific fact that there are such truths, which is what would be the analogue in science of what Gödel did for arithmetic.
“Scientific facts” seem to be limited to a subset of measured data. Pretty much all else that we think we know consists of logical or speculative interpretations to varying degrees of likelihood. In quantum mechanics, the illustrious Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder often complains about the surfeit of speculation amid the dearth of data. In contrast, “truths” presumably transcend mere data and usually include unstated assumptions and context, and are subject to debate. Let me suggest that pretty much everything we generally hold in highest esteem is accessible only poorly, if at all, to science. -QQuerius_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 61, And what point is that? The grimness of grim reality? In the 1950s, Bishop Fulton Sheen hosted a TV program called Life is Worth Living. I think he had a point.relatd_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

@32
So no ‘real’ scientist who holds to the false doctrine of ‘methodological naturalism’ doubts unguided Darwinian evolution?, i.e. does not doubt that random mutations and natural selection, all by their lonesome, can account for life and all the diversity therein? Really??? So who are all these ‘naturalistic’ scientists who are daring to doubt that unguided Darwinian processes are capable of explaining life and all the diversity therein?,, chopped liver???
Of the signatories to that "third way", I know something of the work by Noble, Jablonka, and Newman. They certainly don't think that the Modern Synthesis is sufficient to explain evolution, but they also don't think that evolution was "guided" in the sense that theistic evolutionists and some design theorists do. Noble and Newman have both done fascinating work on an organism-centered approach to evolution, and Jablonka has co-authored an incredible book (Evolution in Four Dimensions on the many different kinds of information transmission beyond genetics in the strict sense. @50
“In the mid-19th century, Karl Marx wrote that religion is “the opiate of the masses” – disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now, and dulling their engagement in progressive politics..”
Marx thought that the priests and pastors of his time used the idea of eternal reward in exchange for earthly suffering in order to prevent people from rebelling against those who exploited and dominated them. I sometimes wonder if Marx would have been more charitable towards religion if he had had more experience with people of faith who side with the powerless and vulnerable. It's easy to see Marx's point when we consider someone like Pat Robertson, but much harder to agree with Marx when we consider someone like Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King, Jr. @52
But just as Kurt Gödel was able to prove in mathematics/logic that no single system could lead to all truth, the same limitation exists for the scientific method. In other words, there are valid truths unreachable by the scientific method. And that’s okay.
I think that this obscures a very important difference. Gödel proved that any formal language that could express the Peano axioms for arithmetic cannot be complete: it must contain true propositions that cannot be proved using the axioms of that language. There is nothing comparable in science: we have not shown (and I don't think could show) that scientific methods necessarily entail that some truths are beyond the scope of scientific methods. Whether or not there are truths that cannot be verified by scientific means is, of course, an interesting and important question. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But I don't think that one could establish as a scientific fact that there are such truths, which is what would be the analogue in science of what Gödel did for arithmetic.PyrrhoManiac1_{November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Relatd/50
“In the mid-19th century, Karl Marx wrote that religion is “the opiate of the masses” – disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now, and dulling their engagement in progressive politics..”
From the Wikipedia article about the quotation:
The quotation, in context, reads as follows (italics in original translation):
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people [bold added]. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
… Marx used the phrase to make a structural-functionalist argument about religion, and particularly about organized religion.[2][3] In his view, religion may be false, but it is a function of something real.[7] Specifically, Marx believed that religion had certain practical functions in society that were similar to the function of opium in a sick or injured person: it reduced people's immediate suffering and provided them with pleasant illusions which gave them the strength to carry on. In this sense, while Marx may have no sympathy for religion itself, he has deep sympathy for those proletariat who put their trust in it.[
I'm no Marxist but, in this case, I think he had a point.Seversky_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 59, I'm callin' in the Spanish Inquisition. No need for the Comfy Chair.relatd_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Better watch out, CD, or you could be facing ... The Comfy Chair!!Seversky_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

CD at 57, Watch it buddy, I got contacts with the Spanish Inquisition... :)relatd_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Relatd spoken like a true papist.......chuckdarwin_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

"Unfortunately, I think it’s a tendency among us all." Q, True. And when the answer to a Big Question hangs in the balance, fear/belief/pride just amplifies... and thus belligerent trolls are spawned. Andrewasauber_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

CD at 54, I'll break it down for you: You've got nothing, as in nothing. No Biology textbook evolution. An existing and growing body of evidence for Design in living things. Something anyone can investigate for themselves. You can call the Cardinal any name you want but he, and the Catholic Church, are on solid footing.relatd_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Relatd/50 You are probably not going to find more diametrically opposed, hard-core idealogues than Marx and Schönborn. Out there on the fringe. Having said that, the point of your post escapes me........chuckdarwin_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @49, Loved the quote from Crick! It also reminds be of a quote from H.L. Mencken, journalist, satirist, and atheist wit (yes, wit, not twit) when he said,
For every human problem, there is a solution. Neat. Plausible. And wrong.
This is how my quantitative analysis prof paraphrased the quote from the original, which I later located in in The Divine Afflatus (1917) if you want to look it up. I remind myself of this on many occasions, and often not frequently enough. (smile) -QQuerius_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Asauber @43,
Translated: People on Our Side don’t have to be right about any particular item. We’re right even if we’re wrong. If they at some point regurgitate “Unguided Evolution” they are invincible.
Unfortunately, I think it's a tendency among us all. True science requires the self-discipline to navigate through our prejudices based on experimental evidence and logic. What's wrong is not to recognize or admit to the difference. The best scientists I've met were curious, open, and humble. The worst were opinionated and doctrinaire. But just as Kurt Gödel was able to prove in mathematics/logic that no single system could lead to all truth, the same limitation exists for the scientific method. In other words, there are valid truths unreachable by the scientific method. And that's okay. -QQuerius_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @30,
Personally, I agree with Denis Walsh in his Organisms, Agency, and Evolution that organism-centrism is not only the correct view but also a return to what Darwin originally accomplished.
I tend to agree, except that factors outside of DNA influencing DNA is becoming more obvious, pointing to engineering as a result. I think my opinion is supported by more recent discoveries of significant gen 0, gen 1, and longer-term adaptations.
Put otherwise, natural selection is not a cause of anything; it is an effect of what tends to happen to populations as a result of what organisms tend to do.
While the effect is on populations, the mechanism is on an individual scale. That’s why fixing an advantageous trait (I’m thinking of insects on windy islands losing their ability to fly) is surprisingly difficult. As a side note, I don’t know of any instances of de novo traits, although at least one disabled trait could be artificially restored through cross breeding (i.e. not spontaneous): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207022622
This debate is a threat to evolution in pretty much the same way that the lively debate between different interpretations of quantum mechanics is a threat to quantum mechanics: which is to say, none at all.
I don’t know how familiar you are with the debates among theoretical physicists, but the speculations and rationalizations regarding the observed phenomena are fundamental and heated. For example, some prominent theoretical physicists believe that we’re living in an ancestor simulation as one interpretation of experimental evidence (measured to a precision of up to 10 parts per billion). On the other hand, microevolution of traits (minus any de novo traits) is observed and not disputed, except for the specific means of the genetic changes. However, the extrapolated macroevolution of “coacervates” (haha) into koalas through microevolution has not been observed, merely hypothesized, and I believe falsified numerous times in individual cases. -QQuerius_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

CD at 47, After reading so-called "reviews" of an Intelligent Design book, the main theme and concern was keeping this out of schools. That is also the main concern here. "... I believe that ad hoc religious explanations will pale and appear childish when the real answers are found. In the meantime, I choose to embrace the vagaries of existence rather than pushing them away and trembling obsessively over my “eternal” fate……" "In the mid-19th century, Karl Marx wrote that religion is “the opiate of the masses” – disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now, and dulling their engagement in progressive politics.." -------------- “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” "Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church." So, the Marxists/Communists here must have their way, all evidence to the contrary. Like Richard Dawkins, they want you to forget about judgment by God and enjoy your life. Politics is the opiate of the self-proclaimed 'give us what we want' """""progressives"""""".relatd_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Q, remember Crick's religious mantra, no matter what you see in biology, no matter how intricately designed it appears to be, you must repeat to yourself, ad nauseam, "it evolved, it evolved, it evolved,,, it evolved,,," and keep repeating it, until you, like some shaman, float serenely above the reality of it all, :)
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case." - ?Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988)
bornagain77_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

to pollute the public-school science curricula with sectarian ideology
Chuck, Chuck this is a no no. You are supposed to want the kids knowledge to be polluted with nonsense. It is working now so don't try to stop it by telling them it may take 1600 years to get some truth. They may begin to doubt the propaganda and we cannot have that. You are right though, we cannot afford evidence and logic to get into the schools.jerry_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

TLH/28 When you identify as a "creationist" I assume mean that you profess some form of Christianity and take Genesis as a factual, literal description of the origin of the cosmos and life--a young earth creationist. What makes me despondent (although I think "despondent" is overly dramatic) are efforts by creationists and many intelligent design advocates, to pollute the public-school science curricula with sectarian ideology--in this case, Christian origin myths--by using litigation and legislation to force this ideology into the public schools. You are absolutely free to teach and preach whatever you want in parochial schools or at home. Just steer clear of public education. I want to be clear on a couple points so that my position is crystalline. First, I have never identified as "atheist" despite the indiscriminate name-calling found on this site. I find atheists just as dogmatic and anti-intellectual as religionists. I am an agnostic by default. Having said that, I am committed to the notion that scientists will progress independent of the myriad "isms" foisted on them by idealogues to ultimately explain nature's secrets by wholly physical description. Whether it takes 160 years or 160 decades is beside the point. As history has shown us time and again, I believe that ad hoc religious explanations will pale and appear childish when the real answers are found. In the meantime, I choose to embrace the vagaries of existence rather than pushing them away and trembling obsessively over my "eternal" fate.......chuckdarwin_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @26, Dr. Hunter nails it once again. How does switching genes on and off evolve in tiny steps? Similar questions for alternation of generations and metamorphosis. -QQuerius_{November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply