I’m willing to bet that all of the talks/papers will refer to processes that are material in origin. Not sure why ID proponents would be excited by this.
See Royal Society announces guest list for Extended Synthesis meet.
It must be difficult to miss the point to the extent that rhampton7 does. Darwinism has been a stupidifier of evolutionary biology for so long that almost everyone just wants to call 1 800 GOTJUNK, the way one would for a flea-bitten sofa. People may differ widely as to what type of sofa should replace it but almost everyone agrees on its fate.
See also: What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!
18 Replies to “Quote of the day on the Royal Society meet”
Darwin is one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived. His breadth of work and contribution to disciplines as diverse as geology to bio-geography, mean his legacy, and meory are assured. He solved “the puzzle” of coral atolls, he wrote extensively on barnacles.
“The Voyage of the Beagal”, a best seller, at the time and I recommend it to any one with a curious, and literary bent. “On The Origin of Species”, “The Descent of Man”, need I say more? OK! “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals”, perhaps the primordial work leading to new branches of scientifc disciplines: More? OK! “The Power of Movement in Plants”, “The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms”.
Papers, monographs, letters the list is endless, and indistructable; people have been trying for decades. And now Suzan Mazur is on the job, and she will bring the whole foul ediface down; I think not!
rvb8, as to this claim:
Actually Charles Darwin was NOT one of the “greatest scientists who has ever lived.” Far from it. Darwin was primarily a liberal theologian who practiced bad theology rather than a great scientist who practiced good science.
In fact, ‘Origin of Species’ itself was primarily based on (bad) theology rather than on any sound science.
And bad theology is is still present in Darwinian ‘science’
As briefly mentioned previously, the scientists of Darwin’s day largely rejected his theory as being unscientific whilst the liberal, unscientific, clergy of his day (and today) readily accept(ed) it.
In fact, Darwin and his followers, far from being great scientists, have done more harm to modern science, and have even done more great harm to society at large, than any other group of people ever have.
To reiterate, Charles Darwin received his training in (bad) liberal theology and was not even a trained scientist, in any meaningful sense of the word, since he hated mathematics. In fact, Darwin said that he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’:
Exactly how does one construct a supposedly ‘scientific’ theory without mathematics?
Moreover, even if Darwin were trained in mathematics instead of in liberal theology, There simply were and are no physical laws for Darwin and his followers to build a rigid, matheatically based, and testable, theory of evolution on. i.e. There simply is no mathematically defined ‘law of evolution’ within the physical universe as there is a mathematically defined ‘law of gravity’ within the physical universe:
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any universal law to appeal to as other overarching theories of science have, Entropy, i.e. the second law of thermodynamics, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity can be easily had:
In fact, without a rigidly defined mathematical basis based on a physical law to test against, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudo-science rather than a proper science:
Some Darwinists take umbrage to being told that their theory is not a even testable science in the first place since it has no rigidly defined mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories of science have.,,,
To counter this, Darwinists will often point to population genetics to try to counter the fact that Darwinian evolution is without a testable mathematical foundation. Yet, in so far as the math of population genetics can be applied to Darwinian claims, this move backfires on Darwinists since the mathematics of population genetics undermines the Darwinian worldview from within.
First off, population genetics, far from bolstering the claims of Darwinists, removed natural selection as a major player in the theory of evolution
In other words, Neutral theory was not developed because of any empirical observation, but was actually developed because it was forced upon Darwinism by the mathematics of population genetics. (i.e. neutral theory is actually the result of a theoretical failure of Darwinism within mathematics!)
William J Murray quips:
Since Darwin’s main contribution to science, i.e. Natural Selection, was thrown overboard since it is mathematically unworkable, I would hardly consider him a great scientist!
Moreover, the mathematics population genetics goes even further than just throwing natural selection overboard as to undermining the Darwinian worldview from within. In this following video, Donald Hoffman has, through computer simulations of population genetics, clearly illustrated the self-defeating nature of the naturalistic worldview in regards to undermining the reliability of our observations of reality.
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Moreover, Completely contrary to materialistic premises, conscious observation, far from being illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable, than materialism had ever predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists believe their observations of reality are illusory!
supplemental notes on population genetics’s mathematical falsification of Darwinian claims:
Also of note:
Woh! The guy that said black people are just above the gorilla and below the white man was a good scientist? Really?
What science did he use to observe that? What science did he use to make his conclusion? I wonder……
If the “sofa” is still created by material means without resort to a designer, I don’t see how that advances ID theory. Further, most ID proponents want to see materialism defeated, and it doesn’t appear that the replacement sofa is capable of such a feat.
BornAgain77…outclassing another atheist/Darwinist. Keep up the great work. It brings joy to my heart every time!
TWSYF, don’t know about ‘outclassed’ but certainly out ‘cut and pasted.’ And what fine sources BA uses. Atleast at WEIT and Pandas I can get good science source material. Nobody ever asks me to go to ‘evolutionnews’, or even ‘youtube’, as a credible science evidence site. ‘Darwinconspiracy.com’? Heh:)
His two chapters on biogeography started that field of study, he did explain how coral atolls formed, he did bring to light the importance of the humble earthworm, he was a prolific and profound author. And while history will forget most of your favourite ‘scientists’, his importance will live on; you know this to be true. Now which of the above statements can be disproved by BA?
rvb8, besides the usual ad hominem and hand waving that Darwinists are notorious for, and besides mentioning earthworms and corals instead of defending natural selection as the be all end all designer substitute that Darwin and his followers envisioned it to be, you are completely disingenuous to the fact that Darwin’s supposedly greatest contribution to science, i.e. Natural Selection, has now been thrown under the bus by the mathematics of population genetics.
In comparison, it is as if Einstein’s theories of relativity, instead of being the stunning successes that they are in science, were to have been found to be flawed in major ways and thrown out as unworkable, and yet his defenders were now claiming instead, ‘well he still got some esoteric point in science right so that still makes him ‘one of the greatest scientists who ever lived’.
No it wouldn’t rvb8. If Einstein were, hypothetically, to have failed in such a major way with relativity as Darwin has been found to have failed with Natural Selection, but still got some minor point in science right, he would be soon rightly be forgotten as ‘one of the greatest scientists who ever lived’. And instead Einstein would be footnoted in the history of science with disdain for being so wrong about science. Think of the alchemists of yore.
Only someone who idolizes Darwin far more than he should be, for whatever severely misguided philosophical and/or religious reasons, would even dare to pretend the situation should be otherwise as you have done.
Of related note, besides failing at the level of population genetics, Natural Selection also fails on two levels of physical reality itself. Natural Selection fails because it works at the gross level of the entire organism instead of at the genetic level where it needs to work. And Natural Selection also fails at the ‘quarter-power scaling’ level since quarter power scaling operates as if it is 4-Dimensional and yet Natural Selection operates at the 3-Dimensional level of the entire organism.
Moreover, although I can’t comment on Darwin’s work on worms and corals since, frankly, they are just not that importantly to me scientifically, I do know that biogeography and geology in general were not Darwin’s strong suits either:
The following video is very interesting for it shows a geological formation that is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic flood, yet Charles Darwin himself had ‘predicted’ the geological formation was formed ‘gradually’:
Biogeography also fails, in fundamental ways, to uphold Darwin’s claim on it:
RVB8 So Darwin one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, high praise indeed ,but is Darwins fame and position not more due to the fact that it gave atheists an out a way to deny the existence of God rather than any great scientific achievements.Consider Ernest Boris Chain who along with Howard Florey took Alexander Flemmings work with Penicillin and refined it to the point that we could all get antibiotic treatment against infections which were killing people in their millions.
So a scientist who saved millions of lives is almost unknown but a part time botanist is a universally known name , now why is that.You might also look into what Chain said about Darwins theory, he use`s the words flimsy, fairy-tale,no evidence.
RVB8 look into Ernest Chain and tell me in your opinion who is the better, more scientific,more valuable to mankind, him or Darwin and then tell me who is more famous and why.
“The book Genetic Entropy asserts there is a profound waiting time problem (see 2014 edition, chapter 9, page 133-136). This assertion strongly supports the previous work by Behe and others. Stated most succinctly, the waiting time problem is simply – there is not enough time for evolution to establish even the most trivial amount of new information.”
We have waited on Darwin’s degrading delusion too long, it is time to take back Sinai. To look to true science.
Darwin’s theory is based on an obvious false assumption:
It seems obvious to me that the act of being alive — the maintenance of homeostasis — is the mother of all teleological activities. So, why is it, then, that Darwin held that a living organism can be regarded as a starting point for a non-teleological materialistic theory? Is such an idea not somewhat akin to assuming that telephone communication constitutes purely mental causation and use it as a starting point for proving the existence of telepathy?
WRT mutations producing viable variation, answer me this:
Suppose a DVD copy machine which produces a few random copy-errors every time it makes a copy. Suppose further that we use this machine to make 10 copies of a newly purchased DVD containing Windows 7. Now remove the original DVD and repeat the imperfect copy process starting with functional second generation “mutated” copies (dysfunctional copies are removed from the process at every round). Next remove all second generation copies and repeat the copy process starting with functional third generation mutated copies. And so forth.
Who would expect that this imperfect copy process is anything other than the degeneration of Windows 7 eventually leading to mutated copies which are, without exception, dysfunctional? Who of us expects versions of Windows 7 with improved functionality?
Of course a DVD with copy errors does not want to be functional, it really doesn’t care whether it is functional or not. But what exactly is the difference between a DVD and an organism under materialism? Similar to a DVD who does not want to be functional, the organism does not want to live. The fermions and bosons that are the organism don’t give a hoot about life.
Darwin didn’t practice ‘theology’ he was religious for a time. You are correct, Darwin was not a ‘trained scientist’, as the world had still not come to grips with ‘trained scientist’, they were, ‘natural philosophers’, as apposed to ‘supernatural philosophers’, or theologians.
“you are completly ‘disingenuous’ to the fact.’ Hmmm, not sure ‘disingenuous’ can be used here, perhaps, ‘blind to’, or ‘unaware of’, will suit your purposes better?
“Einstein’s theories?“ Really? He had more than one. I generally read you with a shovel of salt, but can you describe his other theorise of relativity, I don’t understand his first, but I accept it, as smarter people than me say it works, and I trust science as a truth arbiter. Explain to me BA, Einsteins second or third theories of relativity.
So, worms and corals do not reach the unfathomable heights of BA’s intellect? Well, if worms were to die out the pitiful existance of humanity, would soon follow. Can you follow this reasoning, or do I need to hold your hand and explain how the biosphere works. My ‘ad hominem’ attacks as you describe them, are fully warranted, as you appear to be willfully ignorant about what science is, or actually does.
rvb8, claims that
“Darwin didn’t practice ‘theology’ he was religious for a time.”
And yet the plain fact is that Darwin’s only degree was in Theology and the arguments in Origin are first and foremost predicated on bad liberal theology instead of any substantiating empirical evidence. Thus, although he did not preach in a church, Darwin did indeed practice bad theology instead of sound science.
Moreover, although there were no officially ‘trained scientists’ during Darwin’s day, there were, none-the-less, great scientists who were devoutly Christian, who did indeed practice very good science predicated on empirical evidence and math, For instance, Kelvin, Maxwell and Faraday. All of whom opposed Darwin’s theory. Particularly Kelvin.
Disingenuous was the right word
You do realize that there are TWO theories of relativity do you not? Special and General?
Moreover, each theory of relativity reveals a very distinct ‘eternity’ from the other one.
Then after such a elementary blunder with relativity you accuse me of being ” willfully ignorant about what science is, or actually does”.
No rvb8, that would be you who is ‘willfully ignorant’ since you refuse to accept what the science is telling you.
Moreover, I did not claim that worms were not important for ecology. I claimed that Darwin’s work in the area was just not that important to me. Apparently, since his work with worms is not all that well known, then it appears I am far from the only one who considers it of minor importance scientifically.
And I also note that rvb8 still did not honestly address the abject failure of Natural Selection to be the designer substitute that Darwin and his followers imagined it to be.
As WJM quipped:
Perhaps rvb8, if you were to actually question the sufficiency of Darwinian evolution as a ‘science’ instead of just trying to defend it no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, you would stop embarrassing yourself as you have done repeatedly in this thread?
I think you’ll find that natural selection as a generally recognised process predated Darwin by a considerable margin.
However, he was responsible for a novel version of that process.
While the classic understanding was that natural selection acts to remove extreme variations and thus works to stabilise a species around its unique norms, Darwin proposed natural selection, working against random variations, as a means of shifting those norms to an altogether different set.
It is plain to anyone who observes nature in action that the classic understanding is correct; the “problem” of stasis is well recognised by darwinist and non-darwinist alike.
It’s not a problem for the non-darwinist, but they recognise it as a problem for his theory.
Yes I do realize there are ‘two theories’, but according to your crowd, ‘theories’ are not fact!
“his work with worms is not all that well known” heh:)
rvb8, You now claim that you realize that there are two theories of relativity but you ridiculed me for thinking that there are more than one?
Why are you not humble enough to admit your mistake?