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

Martin_r @9 and Jerry @11, Thanks for the links. I've queued up the longer, more-complete one. Bornagain @10, Thanks for the link to the Cornelius Hunter article. Yes, the progression from "here's how evolution could have progressed" to "this proves that evolution musta taken this path" by cherry picking and misinterpreting data to produce a body of orthodoxy, resulting in a science fantasy embraced by anyone who wants to become or remain employed in academia. -QQuerius_{November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

What exactly is "textbook orthodoxy?" If you actually read the article by Erik Svensson, you get a much different picture than suggested by the OP. Instead of being on the precipice of disaster per the OP, Svensson sees evolution as a thriving debate among biologists with much work left to do from many specialties in biology. As best as I can tell, ID isn't in danger of being seated at the table in the foreseeable future. And to borrow a quote from Svensson, that's a good thing..............chuckdarwin_{November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

@querius "Lamarck must be laughing in his grave." Poor old Stephen J Gould, too.ScuzzaMan_{November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

as to:
"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." - Dr. Hunter
Moreover, aside from the scientific evidence itself directly contradicting the 'religion of naturalism' at every turn, assuming Atheistic Naturalism, i.e. 'methodological naturalism', as a starting philosophical presupposition in science, actually drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure instead of providing a useful heuristic for science in illuminating a deeper, and truer, understanding of reality,
Basically, 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, Coyne), 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.,,,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, 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;
Moreover, far from science being dependent on naturalistic presuppositions, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
,,, 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 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. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
As Robert C. Koons noted,
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 Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics.
Verse:
Colossians 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Supplemental notes,
The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science - Stephen Meyer - video - (April 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ Stephen Meyer Answers Questions about the Judeo-Christian Origins of Science – video https://youtu.be/YBwRC8qJSoI
bornagain77_{November 13, 2022
November
11
Nov
13
13
2022
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Here’s a more complete version of the Grants presentation. It’s much longer. The above video looks like a different presentation at some other event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcVY__T3Ho Start at hour ten minutes in and then listen for genetic incompatibility a few minutes later. In other words all the so called species of finches can mate and have healthy offspring. The definition of species is fluid depending on whatever’s needed to look good at the moment. Let’s Go Finches jerry_{November 13, 2022
November
11
Nov
13
13
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter has another article up at ENV:
Evolution’s Circular Web of Self-Referencing Literature Cornelius Hunter - November 11, 2022 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/evolutions-circular-web-of-self-referencing-literature/
bornagain77_{November 13, 2022
November
11
Nov
13
13
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Querius, Jerry ... i went to Youtube and i looked up a Peter and Rosemary Grant's presentation on Darwin's finches. I haven't watch it yet, but i will later today. From the video description:
Charles Darwin said evolution was too slow to be observed, but modern studies have corrected this assertion.
in this case, now we can say, that Darwinism is a fake news ... because Darwinists need those millions of years, otherwise, Darwinism does not make any sense ... another quote from the video description:
Their research showed that Darwin’s finches evolve repeatedly when the environment changes.
How is this Darwinian ? You get the right beak-size-change mutation every time you need it ? It just confirms what i wrote above ... there must be some (designed) sensor(s) in finches' beaks that triggers the instant beak size change/adjustment (over and over again and whenever it is needed). Here is the video presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJP9kpymYsmartin_r_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Querius from the quote,
... But, Pfennig added, the study suggests that evolution due to competition between closely related species ...
these guys just keep misrepresenting the reality over and over again. So the competition did it, and not the built-in "adjust-beak-size"-feature, right ? PS: According to Jerry, Epigenetic did it .... yes, but first you have to explain, why the beak size can change in the first place ... what triggers that instant change - the look at a bigger seed ? Are there any sensors in finches' beaks, e.g. the seed is hard to crack -> increase the beak size ?martin_r_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Martin_r @5, Thanks for the link. I especially enjoyed this quote:
David Pfennig at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill agrees that the study has important implications. For Pfennig, the study's greatest surprise was "the apparent speed with which the character displacement occurs—within a single year!" Usually we think of evolution as being a slow grind, he says. But, Pfennig added, the study suggests that evolution due to competition between closely related species "paradoxically may often occur so rapidly that we may actually miss the process taking place."
Whoa, yet another surprise! And what about the itty-bitty, teensy-weensy steps over millions of years? Lamarck must be laughing in his grave. -QQuerius_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

i wasn’t aware of the fact, that their beak size can change in only 1 generation
For the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, Stanford held a week long conference of invited speakers on evolutionary biology. Two of the invited speakers were Peter and Rosemary Grant. They destroyed Darwinian Evolution during their talk while all there applauded and oohed and aahed as they spoke. They said that it took 32 million years to get a new finch species. They then repeated it near the end. None of the attendees realized that natural Evolution by Darwinian methods just dissolved before their eyes. The beak changes were due to epigenetics. Let’s Go Finches. jerry_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Querius, Thanks for the info on finches’ beaks… i wasn’t aware of the fact, that their beak size can change in only 1 generation. I looked up the paper, they called it ‘instAnt evolution’. Of course, reserchers surprised again …. Just another example how Darwinists misrepresented the reality …. Obviously, species are designed to adjust some of their features anytime they want to …. It is funny to see, that their beaks changed the very same moment scientists were looking at them …. https://www2.nau.edu/gaud/bio301/content/glpfnch/glpfnch.htmmartin_r_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 3, Living things contain clearly engineered systems.relatd_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

From the same article...
Biologists might disagree on what constitutes an evolutionary process, with natural selection and random changes in DNA being the two best studied processes. Evolutionary processes are not the only interesting aspect of evolution, though. Evolutionary outcomes and the products of evolution – organisms and how they develop – also keep biologists busy. We have come to understand more about how genes and environments interact to shape the development of organisms. These insights from evolutionary developmental biology have clearly enriched our field. That evolutionary biology is increasingly fractured does not worry me either, as long as we recognise that a plurality of approaches is not a weakness, but a strength. If physicists cannot agree upon a grand unified theory of the universe, why should biologists expect to agree on one beyond what we have already achieved? After all, organisms are much more complex than physical particles and processes.
... or engineering analogies.Seversky_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Heh. It's fun to ask a Darwinist how long it takes for Darwin's finches to "evolve" between thick beaks and thin ones. The answer? A single generation. This is entirely due to stored epigenetic code that controls gene expression. It's also interesting to try to imagine how epigenetic code could have "evolved." Another problem is that the mechanism of random mutation (followed by natural selection, of course) is the weakest and least likely source of genetic variation known so far. The other, more effective mechanisms currently known are transposition, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, symbiogenesis, and genome duplication. -QQuerius_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

There is no validated theory of Evolution!!!! This is a great time for ID to make the distinction between genetics and Evolution. The only thing scientists can say about that is they’re right. Everybody agrees on genetics. Evolution is all over the lot. ID can take the stance that maybe a valid theory will arise. But it’s obvious it’s not here now. Aside: ID could even adopt the Galapagos finch as their mascot since it is a symbol of lack of Evolution. Let’s go Finches jerry_{November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply