Paul Nelson (right) has just published an explanation of problems in “The Logic of Development, Common Descent, and the Origin of Animal Body Plans” (as a tour of the history of the topic):
We stand at a remarkable period in the history of biology, whose features were diagnosed by T.S. Kuhn:
“The proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals, all these are symptoms of a transition from normal to extraordinary research.” The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970, p. 91)
Let’s begin with Gerd Müller’s opening talk at the Royal Society Extended Evolutionary Synthesis meeting… on 7 November 2016, where he argued that standard evolutionary theory (abbreviated SET) failed to explain central phenomena in biology. More.
Here’s the .pdf
Standard evolutionary theory (usually known as Darwinism) makes it easier for an incurious teacher to stumble from one school year to the next. No wonder educrats hate people like Paul Nelson for messing with it, right or wrong.
You’re too hard on teachers. Many of them are aware of real science, but they’re MORE aware that they need to eat and pay rent and continue teaching. School admins know that one lawsuit from ACLU will destroy the school.
(Now that schools have cheerfully committed suicide “because virus”, none of these old issues matter. It’s all completely pointless and futile.)
It is taking me some time to read through these slides, but the presentation appears persuasive. Thank you for posting this. I will be interested to see how those commentators holding contrary viewpoints respond.
There is no response.
If you are actually interested in the theory of evolution rather than creationist philosopher Paul Nelson’s strawman version, there is plenty of evidence out there. You can start with the Talk Origins Archive. If you are interested.
Polistra @ 1
That’s exactly what students, parents and school administrators are in some parts of the country, to the point where teachers are intimidated into not even mentioning the word “evolution” and some openly teach creationism in the science classroom.
If those parents object to their children being taught a scientific theory which they believe is not consistent with their faith, imagine how I would feel about my children being force-fed religious beliefs which neither they nor I share. And in the science classroom, for Mog’s sake!
Sev:
Seversky is upset about teachers being censored or fired for not toeing the Darwinian line and is also upset about his children been force fed the science free religion of Darwinism????
In fact, in his book ‘Origin”, instead of any actual experimentation or mathematics, (in fact Darwin found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’), Darwin instead relied mainly on flawed theological argumentation in order to try to make his case for evolution
Oh wait, Seversky was talking about Christianity, not the science free religion of Darwinian evolution being taught in science classrooms: But no one teaches Christianity in science classrooms, Some teacher ‘try’ to teach some of the many fatal flaws in Darwinian theory and are intimidated and/or fired.
Frankly, personally I think it would be VERY good and proper to mention, in science classrooms, the historical and scientific fact that all of science was born out of, and is predicated on, Theistic, even Christian, presuppositions:
As to:
It is interesting to note that Agassiz’s belief that “Each specific form or plant or animal was to him a thought of God” has now, today, some pretty impressive scientific evidence behind it.
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Darwinists simply have no clue how any type of organism might achieve it unique form and/or unique shape, much less do they have a clue how one unique organismal form might transmutate into another organismal form
Whereas, on the other hand, Theists have a ready answer as to how biological form is achieved
Bornagain77 @ 6
If you are unable to distinguish between science and religion then, presumably, you regard quantum mechanics as a faith. You clearly believe it supports your religious presuppositions.
I am outraged that most high school science teachers are intimidated into not mentioning a current scientific theory such as evolution – whether you agree with it or not – while a small minority of science teachers are openly proselytizing their faith in the science classroom which is a blatant breach of their contractual obligations and teaching ethics.
Darwin knew full well he was presenting his theory to what was at that time – at least superficially – a religiose society. His theological references can be explained as attempts to anticipate and head off criticism he expected from some quarters.
If you and Dilley really believe that Darwin’s theological arguments are essential components of his theory then you should be able to strip them out of Origins and show that his case falls apart. I am certain that neither of you can or will.
Once again:
You may find that acceptable as it comports with what appear to be your theocratic tendencies but I don’t.
I am happy for the history of science to be taught in the science classroom but not the narrow, Christian exclusivist version which ignores the science done elsewhere in the world before the faith emerged. If that is what Paul Davies is actually claiming then – much as I have enjoyed his popular science books – I think he’s wrong in that respect.
Bornagain77 7
Agassiz’s personal religious beliefs are not science nor do they have any support from science.
It’s also a bit rich that Darwin should have apologized for his naturalistic theory to a man who held such beliefs when it should really have been the other way around.
So they are saying that the properties of the macroscopic world cannot be derived from the observed properties of the quantum level of physical reality?
So the inference that a quantum system exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed, at which point it settles into just one of the possible values, does not scale up to the claim that, at the macroscopic level of physical reality, nothing exists unless we are looking at it?
Animals that live in very cold environments have thick fur coats and/or thick layers of subcutaneous fat. Animals that swim in the sea have systems for extracting oxygen from seawater. Animals that live on land have lungs to extract oxygen from the air.
By selective breeding we can modify the morphology of chosen species to grow more fur or lean muscle tissue or produce more milk.
We have found fossil sequences such as that of the whales which are strong evidence for change of form over time.
Evolutionary biologists have a good idea of how animals can change form over time in response to environmental influences both internal and external.
The only theistic explanation is that “God did it”. They have absolutely no idea of how their God – assuming He exists – actually did it.
Funny. I’ve never heard of a single Darwinist ever being fired for teaching his unscientific religion is science class, but I have heard of numerous instances of Teachers being fired, (i.e. excommunicated), for merely questioning the science free religion of Darwinism in science class:
With such a double standard that you are employing Seversky, it is certainly hard for me to take your (fake) outrage seriously.
i.e. Where is your outrage at the Gestapo tactics of Darwinists???
Frankly such Gestapo tactics from Darwinists are the antithesis of the open inquiry that is required for people to do good science in the first place.
Seversky at 9 tried to address the evidence I presented at 7.
He failed.
I’ll let unbiased readers decide if he was even in the ballpark.
LoL! @ seversky- Evolutionary biologists don’t even know what makes an animal an animal. they don’t have any idea what makes a cat a cat. All they know is that a kitten is born after a successful mating of a she cat with a tom.
Your entire position isn’t science. Your cluelessness is priceless.
seversky:
There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution to teach. Clearly you are either deluded or just a liar.
to Seversky & the other Darwinian clowns
“If you are actually interested in the theory of evolution…
…. You can start with the Talk Origins Archive. ”
Seversky, does the Darwinian or any other theory of evolution explains how an animal is built ?
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ????
HOW MANY TIME SHOULD I ASK YOU – WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ????
i am not sure if you Darwinian clowns realize that, but building an animal (or a tree) is a fully automated process … (no assembly workers needed, no material suppliers needed) ….
THIS IS AN ENGINEERING SCI-FI !!!
Martin_r: i am not sure if you Darwinian clowns realize that, but building an animal (or a tree) is a fully automated process … (no assembly workers needed, no material suppliers needed) ….
THIS IS AN ENGINEERING SCI-FI !!!
Yeah, it is pretty cool isn’t it? Kind of like the way you were built isn’t it? You started out as two haploid cells, they met and formed a single diploid cell and divided and divided and divided, forming different tissues and organs and functions. After about nine months you were able to breathe on your own and eat when presented with food. Giver or take another eighteen years or so you were pretty much complete. And then you started that slow, inevitable slide to oblivion.
And just think: somewhere between a quarter to a third of zygotes don’t even get to the being born stage. Maybe they had deleterious mutations, maybe their mother had some nasty disease or habit. Maybe a piano fell on them while still in the womb. And then there are a few that don’t make it to adulthood; some disease (like Malaria or Polio or Diphtheria or Ebola or TB or Rubella) or or accident or mental problem overwhelms them and they’re out of the gene pool. Maybe they were just born into a poor African family that has a really bad water supply and no medical care. And you don’t have Down’s Syndrome or Lupus or severe asthma or MS or MD or Leukaemia or a huge variety of other congenital conditions that can kill or severely limit life and the quality of life.
Yes, if you’re old enough to own the computer you’re using to write on this forum you are definitely one of the lucky ones. Your genes are pretty good, your place of rearing was pretty good, you were pretty lucky growing up, you ended up getting a job that pays the bills, you learned to read and write (not everyone get’s that privilege).
How to build a successful human adult; who knew so many attempts would fall by the wayside eh? Oh well, too bad things weren’t designed a bit better eh? There seems to be a lot of wastage in the system. And that’s just now, that’s just the way it happens at the present. Considering the millions and millions of years it took to get here . . . . lots and lots and lots and lots of bodies. We live on soil built up by the corpses of our antecedents. It took a huge number of deaths, billions and billions, just to get the planet ready for us.
An engineering miracle? Or a hit-and-miss process that continues to miss a good portion of the time?
Your hit or miss process was exposed in “Waiting for TWO Mutations”. Seems it can’t do much beyond muck things up.