From Suzan Mazur, a plea for evolution free from mysticism

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 30, 2018

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Responding to animal behaviorist Kevin Laland’s recent piece at Aeon, Evolution unleashed: Is evolutionary science due for a major overhaul – or is talk of ‘revolution’ misguided?

At Oscillations, Mazur writes,

In the unconvincing Aeon article, “Evolution unleashed,” Laland asks the question: “If the extended evolutionary synthesis is not a call for a revolution in evolution, then what is it, and why do we need it?

Good point. To answer Laland’s question—We don’t need it. We don’t need a graft onto Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.

What we do need is a coherent evolutionary theory, untainted by mystical influences and non-transparent funding. An evolutionary theory that reflects the world of microbes and viruses that all animals, plants and fungi live in and that includes pre-biotic evolution as well.More.

Mazur skewers Laland’s associations with Templeton. Ah, that.

One difficulty is that the power layers in evolutionary biology are dominated by pre-retirement Darwinians. If Laland has found himself a port in the storm, he might want to stay there for now. Others haven’t been so lucky. Astronomer Martin Gaskell comes to mind, and his only offense was that some faculty thought he might have doubts…

Well, stay tuned.

Note: Suzan Mazur is the author of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009), possibly the first book for the lay reader on the growing sense among researchers that Darwinism (the modern synthesis) is in need of an overhaul.

See also: At Aeon: Damage control attempted re the current evolution upheavals

A Unifying Principle for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Also, Wrong Turn.

and

New call for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (2015)

Comments

bornagain77 @ 9
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing
Are you serious? The very first story in Genesis has Adam and Eve being curious about the Tree whose fruit they were forbidden to eat. Curiosity is at the root of science and that capacity must have been designed into them by God. Nothing happens but by His will, remember? And what do they get for acting on their God-given ability? They get slapped down hard and then tossed out on their ear from the garden of Eden, the only home they'd known since they were created. Then humanity is cursed to suffer in perpetuity for A&E's sin. Fine sense of justice there. As for telling the truth, God pretends to be outraged when He supposedly discovers that they had eaten the forbidden fruit. But God is omniscient. He must have known what they could - and did - do long before they actually did it. Pretending otherwise is the first lie. He also warned them that on the day they ate the fruit they would surely die. Except that didn't happen. They got evicted and lived long - if not so happy -lives elsewhere. Another lie. Great start for the book that is textual basis of a faith that extolls the virtues of truth, honesty, compassion and charity.
As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview
Yes, modern science has its roots in Europe and there is no denying that the Church played a significant role in fostering it. But to pretend that nothing of scientific significance happened in ancient China or India or Egypt or Greece or under Islam is blatant Eurocentric hubris.Seversky_{February 2, 2018
February
02
Feb
2
02
2018
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 6: You already know (or should know) the answers to your questions. It is a waste of time for BA77 and others to continue to address you.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 1, 2018
February
02
Feb
1
01
2018
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Sev, reality differs greatly from the lies you tell yourself:
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/ Christians – Not the Enlightenment – Invented Modern Science – Chuck Colson – Oct. 2016 Excerpt: Rodney Stark's,,, book, "For the Glory of God,,,, In Stark's words, "Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science." Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy. That's because Christianity depicted God as a "rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being" who created a universe with a "rational, lawful, stable" structure. These beliefs uniquely led to "faith in the possibility of science." So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, "the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack of faith." Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I've mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as "liberators" of the human mind and spirit. Well, it's up to us to set the record straight, and Stark's book is a great place to start. And I think it's time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/chuck-colson/weve-been-lied-christians-not-enlightenment-invented-modern-science 50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov PART IV. FOUNDERS OF MODERN SCIENCE (16th - 21st Century) - page 89 http://nobelists.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/2/0/4020654/50-nobelists-english.pdf The Judeo-Christian Origin of Modern Science - Peter Hodgson - video http://www.counterbalance.org/cosmcrea/hodg-frame.html
as to:
There is no need for theology. The theory of evolution in biology stands just fine on its own feet.
So you really believe that? Again, reality differs greatly from the lies you tell yourself:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,, - per evolutionnews Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
bornagain77_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 4
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.
Stuff and nonsense. That's the story some Christians tell themselves in order to claim some credit for the obvious success of science. The historical reality is that science in its broadest sense has flourished at different times and in the context of different cultures all with out the supposed benefits of Christian theology - liberal or otherwise. We start from where we are, with what we are and with what we can see around us. We use our senses to study what is within their range and use our imagination and reason to try and make sense of it. There is a fundamental mystery concerning why there is an ordered universe and how it is that we have come to be able to comprehend it but that doesn't prevent us from grappling with problems of more immediate interest.
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it. In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their science, it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science.
There is no need for theology. The theory of evolution in biology stands just fine on its own feet. To paraphrase Laplace, it has no need of that hypothesis. The only time religion comes into it is when there is a need to answer or counter creationist criticisms. Darwin's references to God and religion are easily explained if you understand that he was publishing his theory to a highly religiose audience in 19th century England. He was concerned both to try not to offend those religious sensibilities as far as was possible and to answer the theologically-based criticism he anticipated would be levelled at his work. That's more than enough to account for the theological stuff.Seversky_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

There isn't a scientific theory of evolution, Seversky. That alone taints evolution.ET_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

What we do need is a coherent evolutionary theory, untainted by mystical influences and non-transparent funding. An evolutionary theory that reflects the world of microbes and viruses that all animals, plants and fungi live in and that includes pre-biotic evolution as well
Still pushing the anti-Darwinism agenda and hoping for the next paradigm shift to write a book about? Like others here I'm wondering just what mystical influences are supposed to be tainting evolution and what funding - transparent or otherwise - has to do with anything?Seversky_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

To this day, Darwinists are still very much dependent of bad liberal theology, instead of any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
That Darwinists would still today be so dependent on such a faulty theological foundation based in bad liberal theology, in order to try give force to their arguments, is, contrary to what Darwinists may believe, actually another compelling argument that drives my point home that basic Theistic presuppositions are necessary for us to even be able to coherently practice science in the first place. One final note, since Christianity, and the presuppositions therein, were necessary for the founding of modern science, then it should not be all that surprising to find out that Christianity also brings us what can be termed 'an ultimate closure to science' ,,,, in that Christ's resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into what is called the quote unquote “Theory of Everything”:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Jw5Y686jY Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
bornagain77_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara asks:
"Does she mean Christianity?"
Unfortunately she does. What she does not realize is that Darwinism is dependent on a perverted form of liberal Christianity. In establishing this point it is first important to note that Christian presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe, and the ability of our mind to comprehend that intelligibility of the universe, underlay the founding of modern science, and those presupposition continue to be very much an integral part of modern science,,
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.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray - August 14, 2014 Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature. The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/the_truth_about_science_and_religion.html
The plain fact is that ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science is simply impossible without those basic Theistic presuppositions,,,
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it. In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their science, it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science.
Charles Darwin - The Rest of the Story Excerpt: Charles Darwin received a general degree in Theology from Cambridge, graduating in 1831.,,, he almost became an Anglican Minister and his degree was in Theology. http://creationanswers.net/biographies/CDarwin.htm
In fact, the liberal ‘unscientific’ Anglican clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against Darwin's theory:
Reactions to Origin of Species “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species
Pastor Joe Boot and Dr. Cornelius Hunter have both done work exposing the faulty liberal theology that underlays Darwinian thought..
The Descent of Darwin (The Faulty Theological Foundation of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996 Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil - 2001 Excerpt: (Cornelius Hunter) shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution. Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118
Moreover, Charles Darwin's book itself, Origin of Species, instead of being filled with experimentation and mathematics, is replete with bad liberal theology.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X
bornagain77_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

What we do need is a coherent evolutionary theory, untainted by mystical influences and non-transparent funding.
What does Mazur mean by mysticism? She doesn't elaborate. Does she mean Christianity?Bob O'H_{January 31, 2018
January
01
Jan
31
31
2018
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

Scientifically, the Evolution theory is a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. Although the public acceptance of these two theories is quite different, they are both in stark contradiction with the knowledge gained through observation, which makes them equally pseudoscientific. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for understanding their pseudoscientific character. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the Flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of Evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary process, which supposedly created all the levels of biological organisation. But once the knowledge about the actual creative capabilities of this process is provided, the pseudoscientific character of the Evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the Flat Earth theory. The evolution theory, in its most essential form, is the belief of naturalistic philosophy according to which new functional genes for structures, processes and functions of living organisms can result from the evolution process. The evolution process is a natural process where mutations and gene migration create variation in the genetic material of an organism, and then this variation is filtered by natural selection and genetic drift. This process is believed to be responsible for the rise of biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. Now, since the evolution process is a fact known by actual experience or observation, we can determine empirically, through the scientific method, what is this process actually capable of producing and whether the above mentioned belief is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific philosophy equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. In order to do that, we are going to take a look at the biggest empirical observation of evolution in action, namely, the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE). The LTEE is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 66,000 in November 2016. To put this experiment into perspective, its 66,000 generations is equivalent to over one million years of human evolution, which is significant even on evolutionary time scales. Now, the most important question is what did Lenski find in this experiment with regards to the belief of naturalistic philosophy? Did he find that the evolution process produced new functional genes? Not at all. His experiment resulted in 0 - zero new genes. Most of the changes in the experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. The the most significant change was mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E-coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions. So, after more than 66,000 generations, the LTEE didn't produce a single functional unit of heredity - a gene. Let us now compare this empirical result with the theoretical perspective. According to the evolution theory, chimps and humans had a common ancestor five million years ago. Meaning, over the past five million years the human genome has been acquiring genetic changes via the evolution process. And one of such changes involves 60 orphan protein-coding genes, which were identified in a recent study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3213175/ Orphan genes are functional protein-coding genes that have no homologues in the ancestral species. According to comparative genome analyses every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10-20 percent of such genes. But let's focus only on the 60 orphan genes identified in the mentioned study. Even with this small number of genes, the discrepancy between empirically observed and theoretically assumed capabilities of the evolution process is more than obvious. Specifically, since according to the evolution theory chimps and humans had a common ancestor, the existence of 60 orphan protein-coding genes in human genome basically means they had to be produced by the process of evolutionin in the last five million years. But, the biggest empirical observation of evolution in action(the LTEE) shows that in the equivalent of 1/5th of that time, this process has been unable to produce even a single orphan gene. This discrepancy is even more obvious in the context of the hypothetical evolution of whales, where in the time span of just 9 million years, a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep had to be transformed into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale. Since the difference between humans and chimp is negligible in comparison to the difference between a terrestrial and a fully aquatic mammal, the scale of morphological adaptations in this evolutionary scenario would have to be massive, and it would require thousands of orphan genes to be formed in a relatively short period of time. The empirical observation of the actual capabilities of the evolution process clearly demonstrated that this couldn't have happened. Now, with that being said there must be some explanation for this inability of the evolution process to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Such explanation does exist and it says this is because the number of neutral mutations for any given hypothetical evolutionary adaptation, greatly exceeds the total number of mutations that occurred in the entire history of life on Earth. Let's look at this in more detail. From the perspective of evolution theory any functional gene is basically an evolutionary adaptation by which the organism became better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. Due to the fact that an organism cannot adapt with whatever gene it has in its DNA, the theory of evolution postulates mutations as means of DNA rearrangements that will ultimately result in adaptive genes. Thus, from the perspective of evolutionary adaptations, the mutations that result in adaptive genes are beneficial(adaptive), while the ones that don't are neutral(non-adaptive). Let us now consider a standard evolutionary scenario involving a population that is adapting to an aquatic environment and doesn't have the genes that code structures for breathing underwater. Evolution by gene duplication is considered one of the most important source of new genes and genetic novelty in organisms. So let's suppose that a duplication mutation causes duplication of some gene, that will represent the first step in evolution of structures for breathing underwater. Since this duplication supplies a gene that is already there, further mutations are required for this gene to develop into adaptive one. For the purpose of simplicity, let us assume that the duplicated gene is only three nucleotides long and has the following DNA sequence: CCC and that adaptive genes have the following DNA sequences: ATT, CGC, ACA and AAA. Given the fact that a gene consists of four different bases and that any base can assume one of four values (ATCG), a sequence of L basis can assume one out of 4^L values, which gives 4^3 or 64 possible sequences. In terms of beneficial and neutral mutations that means there are potentially 4 beneficial and 60 neutral mutations. This further means that the evolution process must generate 15 random mutations(60/4) before finding a beneficial one. As we can see from the above example, most genes(60) are non-adaptive, leaving relatively small number of adapting ones(4). But since the duplicated gene is only three nucleotides long, a small number of mutations are required to convert this gene to adaptive one and finish the first step in evolution of structures for breathing underwater. Let's now apply this mathematical rationale to experimentally measured ratio between non-adaptive and adaptive genes. Suppose the gene that codes for lambda repressor protein is an evolutionary adaptation which helped the organism to survive and multiply in its environment. A study conducted by John F. Reidhaar-Olson, Robert T. Sauer investigated the informational content of the lambda repressor protein and discovered, that "the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about one in 10^63, of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prot.340070403/full What does that mean in terms of mathematical rationale of the above simple example? Well, since the mathematical principle is the same, that means that the evolution process must generate 10^63 random mutations before finding a beneficial one. In other words, if, as claimed by the theory, lambda repressor protein is an evolutionary adaptation then the number of mutations in the entire history of life on Earth must be greater than this number. Now let's see what are the lower and upper limit estimates for the number of mutations: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full This study arrived at a figure of 10^43 for the upper limit and 10^23 for the lower and upper limit. Given these numbers, it is obvious why the evolution process is unable to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Simply put, the quantity of neutral or non-beneficial mutations for a single evolutionary adaptation(lambda repressor protein) is 20 orders of magnitude greater than the total numbers of mutations in the history of life. In other words, due to the enormous lack of mutational resources, the evolution process is stuck in a neutral territory and it cannot proceed towards evolutionary adaptations upon which natural selection can act. This makes the Evolution theory a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. People believe this myth for ideological reasons, while most researchers in the field of evolutionary biology push this myth because it is imperative for them to continue to secure funding and employment. It always boils down to ‘follow the money’. Getting paid for empty storytelling about unseen past events is easy money for them.forexhr_{January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Can evolution ever be free from mysticism?
mys·ti·cism noun 2. belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought,,,,
Seeing that Darwinism is wholly dependent on 'self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought', instead of any actual empirical evidence, the answer is, "NO, evolution can never be free from mysticism.
Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudo-Science based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDi6gUMQJQ
bornagain77_{January 30, 2018
January
01
Jan
30
30
2018
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply