Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A friend reminds us of what philosopher Michael Polanyi had to say about Darwinian evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) was the author of Personal Knowledge (1958).

Our philosopher (and photographer) friend Laszlo Bencze is reading it and kindly writes to say, “The quote below shows that critiques of evolution long predate the rise of the Intelligent Design movement and are generally based on sound logical principles.”

This [distinguishing patterns from randomness] bears on the theory that the different living species have come into existence by accidental mutations. This can be affirmed only if, first you accredit the distinctive pattern of living beings as exhibiting a peculiar orderliness which you trust yourself to appraise, and second you accept at the same time the belief that evolution has taken place by a vastly improbable coincidence of random events combining to an orderly shape of a highly distinctive character. However, if we are to identify—as I am about to suggest—the presence of significant order with the operation of an ordering principle, no highly significant order can ever be said to be solely due to an accidental collocation of atoms, and we must conclude therefore that the assumption of an accidental formation of the living species is a logical muddle. It appears to be a piece of equivocation, unconsciously prompted by the urge to avoid facing the problem set to us by the fact that the universe has given birth to these curious beings, including people like ourselves. To say that this result was achieved by natural selection is entirely beside the point. Natural selection tells us only why the unfit failed to survive and not why any living beings, either fit or unfit, ever came into existence. —

Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, p. 35

Some have wondered why Polanyi’s critiques have not cut more ice.

Couple things: Timing might have been an issue because the very next year, 1959, featured a huge Darwin hooplah. American intellectual Gertrude Himmelfarb was allowed to critique it in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959) but maybe no one took her seriously.

Friends have also been known to suggest that the Oxford establishment was uncomfortable with the brilliant and self-taught Polanyi who added to these vices by not participating in the Darwin cult.

Himmelfarb?

You may also wish to read: Himmelfarb On Darwin: An Enduring Perspective After 50 Years, Part 1 (science historian Michael Flannery, December 14, 2009)

A few months ago The Panda’s Thumb used the occasion of Irving Kristol’s death on September 18th to denigrate Gertrude Himmelfarb’s 50 year-old Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution as a “terrible book . . . demonstrating a lack of understanding of biology and a warped view of Darwin’s influence.” The article, written by Jeffrey Shallit, glibly casts aspersions on the late Kristol’s ethic for reviewing Gertrude Himmelfarb (aka Bea Kristol) in Encounter and failing to disclose that he was the author’s husband (though this writer could find no evidence of that at least with her Darwin), this without once reflecting on the questionable propriety of turning what should have been either a respectful obituary or complete silence into an opportunity to insult both the deceased and his widow. If that isn’t unethical, it is at least indecent. Shallit’s one-sided, high-toned moralizing aside, as the “Darwin year” draws to a close and given the fact that Himmelfarb’s biography of Darwin itself has just marked its golden anniversary, perhaps a careful reflection upon that effort is in order. What can be said of Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution in the dusk of 2009? Is it a terrible book?

And here’s Part 2.

Comments
Seversky states that, "criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists such as theologians, philosophers, lawyers and engineers." In that statement Seversky is presupposing that there has not been widespread discrimination, censorship, and expulsion, in academia against anyone who may dare question the theory of evolution. Seversky is, as usual, completely wrong in his presupposition.
Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality. Scott Minnich Richard Sternberg Günter Bechly Eric Hedin Don McDonald David Coppedge Caroline Crocker Bryan Leonard Martin Gaskell Dean Kenyon Roger DeHart Granville Sewell https://freescience.today/stories/ Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/ Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Do you think there is a Darwinist hold in the world of science that keeps giving silent warnings to all the scientists to stay loyal to evolutionary ideas? Definitely yes, as I myself had to experience (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances? 8) Are there many scientists like yourself who dare to challenge evolutionary ideas? I know many who avoid these questions altogether in order not to jeopardise their career, but most of them simply haven’t heard that there are valid scientific objections against Neo-Darwinism. http://archive.is/rDXfq At Mind Matters News: Non-Materialist Science Is Wanted — Dead Or Alive - August 29, 2021 Michael Egnor: As an example of how difficult this can be, I’ve been involved quite a bit in the intelligent design vs. Darwinism debates. I have a friend who is a basic scientist and molecular biologist who is one of the leading people in this field. He is exceptionally accomplished… great guy. I was at a meeting with him one time and he took me aside and he said, “I’ve seen what you’ve been doing with intelligent design and so on. I’m a Christian. And I think you’re right. I think Darwinism and materialism are grossly inadequate ways of understanding biology. But I can’t say that out loud. I can’t say a word about that, because my wife is sick. We need our health insurance. I need my job. And if I said a word about materialism or Darwinism not being acceptable frameworks for doing the science, I would never get another grant. I couldn’t feed my family.” And that’s true. They will destroy people. They will destroy people’s careers. Look at what people tried to do to Mike Behe for writing Darwin’s Black Box (1996). He’s tenured. But in his department, he was treated as a pariah. If they could have fired him, they would have done it in a minute. Arjuna Das: I was wondering how he got away with it. Michael Egnor: He’s tenured. I’ve gotten calls to my department in my university demanding that I be fired. That’s a fairly frequent thing. I was called a couple of years ago by the campus police that there was a death threat against me and they wanted to protect me. So this kind of stuff goes on. And some of these people are vicious. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-non-materialist-science-is-wanted-dead-or-alive/ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g Slaughter of Dissidents – Book Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,, "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405
Also, directly contrary to what Seversky tried to imply about engineers having nothing meaningful to say about biology, It turns out that engineers, via some of their, (fairly technical), models for understanding engineered systems, have a lot to say about biology,
Engineers Crash the Evolution Party, Rethink Biological Variation - 2021 https://idthefuture.com/1549/ On today’s ID the Future, physicist and engineer Brian Miller sits down with host Casey Luskin to survey exciting developments in intelligent design research that are driven by an engineering model for understanding and studying variations in species. ID researchers are pushing this work, but so too are systems biology researchers outside the intelligent design community. Tune in to hear Miller and Luskin discuss everything from fruit flies, finch beaks, and stickleback fish to mutational hotspots, phenotypic plasticity, and the gravity well model of biological adaptation. How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html
And whereas engineers, directly contrary to what Seversky tried to imply, have a lot to say about biology, it turns out that Evolution theory itself has very little, to nothing, to offer biologists in terms of successfully guiding their biological research.
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." - Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005?
In fact, given the 'junk-DNA', and vestigial organ, 'predictions' of Darwin's theory, Darwin's theory actually has a long history of grossly misleading biologists instead of successfully guiding them to insightful breakthroughs in biology. In conclusion, the reality of the situation is, as usual, far different than what Seversky falsely imagines it to be.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
March 23, 2022
March
03
Mar
23
23
2022
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PST
Martin_r But i have to insist, only engineers are qualified to comment on biology. Biology is all about engineering … So when some biologist, paleontologist or archeologist (or people like Seversky) is going to give me a lesson from evolutionary theory, i can only laugh. These people don’t even understand how ridiculous they are – that is the most sad think about it … these people are naive romantics – natural science graduates – they know nothing about real life. Nothing. They never made anything. It is very sad that this nonsensical very absurd theory is still taught in 21st century schools … The theory was developed in 19th century, and this is exactly where it belongs.
True. But bear in mind that theologians know directly from the Engineer that invented life engineering. There are 2 kinds of knowledge that reach same conclusion.Sandy
March 23, 2022
March
03
Mar
23
23
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PST
Ram @10 is mentioning R Dawkins's blind watchmaker ... I hate to comment on R Dawkins, because this guy is so confused (politely said) Anyway,
In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins crafts an elegant riposte to show that the complex process of Darwinian natural selection is unconscious and automatic. If natural selection can be said to play the role of a watchmaker in nature, it is a blind one—working without foresight or purpose.
Is Dawkins suggesting, that blind people do not know what they are doing ? Are blind people unconscious ? Or what is this clown suggesting ? The watchmaker might be blind, but in order to create/assemble a watch, he is still using his other senses + his brain as well ... Dawkins should have used another description - a dead watchmaker.martin_r
March 23, 2022
March
03
Mar
23
23
2022
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PST
Seversky is repeatedly mention the Salem hypothesis.... So let's have a closer look, from wikipedia:
The Salem Hypothesis is the observation of an apparent correlation between the engineering trade and creationist beliefs (possibly due to crank magnetism, this can also include climate-change denial and other crackpot beliefs). The Salem Hypothesis was formulated by Bruce Salem on talk.origins.
I tried to google Bruce Salem (if it is his real name), to learn what is his education or what he is doing for living ... i couldn't find a thing. Seversky, could you help? One thing is for sure, Bruce Salem is not an engineer. As to Salem hypothesis:
The Salem Hypothesis is the observation of an apparent correlation between the engineering trade and creationist beliefs
i agree with this part ... but then it continues:
(possibly due to crank magnetism, this can also include climate-change denial and other crackpot beliefs).
possibly ??? POSSIBLY ??? This also perfectly illustrates Darwinism ... "Possibly .... it may have ... most probably ... most likely ... " Assumptions everywhere - that's Darwinism ... Perhaps it would help, if this Darwinian clown talks to an engineer :))))) Anyway, this guy Bruce Salem, has to explain why only engineers out of thousands of other occupations out there ... what may be the reason ???? :))))))) Is Bruce Salem suggesting, that we engineers, who created every single thing on this planet, are most messed up, that we allegedly tend to believe nonsense ? Why us ?martin_r
March 23, 2022
March
03
Mar
23
23
2022
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PST
I realize that some of you don't like my style. I apologize. But i have to insist, only engineers are qualified to comment on biology. Biology is all about engineering ... So when some biologist, paleontologist or archeologist (or people like Seversky) is going to give me a lesson from evolutionary theory, i can only laugh. These people don't even understand how ridiculous they are - that is the most sad think about it ... these people are naive romantics - natural science graduates - they know nothing about real life. Nothing. They never made anything. It is very sad that this nonsensical very absurd theory is still taught in 21st century schools ... The theory was developed in 19th century, and this is exactly where it belongs. PS: of course, theologians, philosophers, lawyers may comment on the theory as well, they may have some good ideas, but like i said, biology is all about engineering - NO EXCEPTIONS! Even feelings like love or hate (or stupidity) had to be engineered ...martin_r
March 23, 2022
March
03
Mar
23
23
2022
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PST
Ram/10
Seversky: criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists such as theologians, philosophers, lawyers and engineers. That’s like saying the criticisms of the Roman Catholic church come overwhelmingly from non-Catholics. Being inside an ideological groupthink bubble is neither a defense nor a persuasive argument.
Nor is an allegation of existing within "an ideological groupthink bubble" an effective criticism. It's just a conspiracy theory by another name. If those non-biologists had come up with criticisms of evolutionary theory of which evolutionary biologists acknowledged they were previously unaware then the critics might have a case. Has that ever happened? As for allegations of a "groupthink bubble", it could only be made by those who are unaware of the often fierce debates within the field over controversial issues such as "junk" DNA.
I’m an engineer, and I evaluate blind-watchmaker claims from an engineering standpoint. And while I can’t agree with your statement fully, I almost can. If blind-watchmaker evolutionary biologists would take a few semesters of engineering, BWE would probably dry up in a generation.
Yet another data-point for the Salem Hypothesis.Seversky
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PST
Martin_r/3
Seversky, ironically, ENGINEERS ARE THE ONLY ONES who are qualified to criticize the theory of evolution … theologians, philosophers, lawyers and especially biologists – natural science graduates – ARE NOT QUALIFIED … Engineers are the only ones, who were able to replicate (more or less) some of the species features … not biologists, not archeologists, not paleontologists or any other ‘-logist’ …
Another data-point in support of the Salem Hypothesis.Seversky
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST
Nothing illustrates Seversky’s observation with more poignancy
Than the people who are experts in biology and support ID Douglas Axe, PhD Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology Michael Behe, PhD Professor of biological scIences. Michael Egnor, MD Professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics Cornelius G. Hunter - a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology Johnathan Wells earned PhD in molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley Günter Bechly, PhD Paleontology Ann Gauger is a zoologist with a BS in biology from MIT and a 1989 PhD from the University of Washington Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, Fazale (Fuz) Rana - PhD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University Michael John Denton - holds a PhD degree in biochemistry Then there are the physicists and those with philosophy of science degrees. As usual ChuckDarwin is batting a thousand, being wrong. He cannot point to one biologist who can defend Evolution. Which includes himself.jerry
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PST
Nothing illustrates Seversky's observation with more poignancy than the self-described granddaddy of ID, Phillip Johnson....chuckdarwin
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST
Seversky: criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists such as theologians, philosophers, lawyers and engineers. That's like saying the criticisms of the Roman Catholic church come overwhelmingly from non-Catholics. Being inside an ideological groupthink bubble is neither a defense nor a persuasive argument. martin_r: ENGINEERS ARE THE ONLY ONES who are qualified to criticize the theory of evolution … theologians, philosophers, lawyers and especially biologists – natural science graduates – ARE NOT QUALIFIED I'm an engineer, and I evaluate blind-watchmaker claims from an engineering standpoint. And while I can't agree with your statement fully, I almost can. If blind-watchmaker evolutionary biologists would take a few semesters of engineering, BWE would probably dry up in a generation. --Ramram
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST
criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists
One would think that biologists would be able to defend what they believe. The first one who can will win a Nobel prize. But not in medicine. It will be in Literature because it will definitely be a work of fiction. Challenge: for anyone but especially the anti-ID people here. Name one person in the universe who can defend a theory of Evolution? jerry
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST
criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists such as theologians, philosophers, lawyers and engineers
That's quite a big list. Within the ranks of biologists, criticism is not permitted. But then outside of those ranks, we find criticism coming from many and diverse academic fields. That's also because the claims of evolution touch on every aspect of life. Evolution makes claims about the origin (and therefore by implication the meaning) of human life itself, on society as a whole and on the history of the earth. Then we see the "keepers of the theory" walk in lock-step, defending it, and they attack everyone else as lacking competence. But how much competence is needed to see the problems in evolutionary theory? It seems that anyone who critiques it, by that fact, is considered incompetent. I've been studying it seriously for 15 years, but supposedly only the professional biologists can understand the theory and I cannot? That tells me there's something wrong with the theory right there. Polanyi rightly criticized the idea that natural selection can explain the origin of organisms and that does not need to refer to origin of life. There was, supposedly, one OOL event. But Polanyi points out that natural selection needs to explain "why any living beings, either fit or unfit, ever came into existence" - giving evolution the first one. That's the problem. We'll give you origin of life. Natural selection still cannot tell us why any other living beings exist beyond the first life form. It cannot even do that in theory - and definitely cannot demonstrate it scientifically. Why did bacteria need to become multi-cellular life?
Notably, the conspiracy theorists ignore the cognitive dissonance revealed by alleging a conspiracy theory to suppress publication of critiques of evolution – by publishing critiques of evolution.
What is ironic is that the scientific community ridicules ID-supportive science journals as "non-scientific" but then they'll say that there's plenty of space to publish critiques of evolution so why are IDists complaining? We're forced into our in-house publications because of the very conspiracy that is denied by this.Silver Asiatic
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PST
A theory based on an proved unscientific idiocy(random mutation) and a tautology ( natural selection="survival of survivors"). PS: Genome is just the library of the cell (where are kept the blueprints) and doesn't have executive power. Brainwashing = when somebody ask you to focus on the wrong thing while he take your wallet. :)Sandy
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PST
KF
MR, do I need to remind that in the UK, Institute of Physics is a member of the Institution of engineers?
sure, that makes sense. I had lots of advanced physics / math during my study at technical university i graduated from.
Where, too, you would be surprised at the relevant background of many in your list of the unqualified.
So let's talk about fully autonomous self-navigating flying systems that chasing other fully autonomous self-navigating flying systems at high speed (e.g. insects, birds, mammals) who in particular has the relevant background ? A philosopher ? A lawyer ? A theologian ? Or a biologist ?martin_r
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST
Martin_r, Agreed. I saw a video someone here shared about a famous molecular engineer that was walking his students through the process of what it took to build the simplest molecular machine. It is spectacularly difficult for many, many different reasons, and he made it totally clear why it just cannot happen in a natural environment and without deliberate efforts to achieve a specific goal. Can't be done.William J Murray
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST
MR, do I need to remind that in the UK, Institute of Physics is a member of the Institution of engineers? Where, too, you would be surprised at the relevant background of many in your list of the unqualified. The problem is not the design inference on signs or its warrant, but that we have a deeply entrenched school of thought locked into rejecting relevance of such signs. And people from your list can help a lot in taking apart the errors of reasoning and of fact involved. KFkairosfocus
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PST
would be that criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists such as theologians, philosophers, lawyers and engineers.
Seversky, ironically, ENGINEERS ARE THE ONLY ONES who are qualified to criticize the theory of evolution ... theologians, philosophers, lawyers and especially biologists - natural science graduates - ARE NOT QUALIFIED ... Engineers are the only ones, who were able to replicate (more or less) some of the species features ... not biologists, not archeologists, not paleontologists or any other '-logist' ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmNaLtC6vkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJCMIsLuGpg the other guys (-logists) just telling stories, very absurd stories, these guys never made anything ...martin_r
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PST
Sevesky, writing off the argument does not make it wrong. Remove life from the equation and point out the actual evidence of speciation. Without being witnessed and replicated, which has never happened, it is fiction. Belief based on assumptions has nothing to do with science. Why do you believe speciation to be a valid theory without evidence? If smart people in academia started claiming there was a small black hole at the center of Earth and claimed to have evidence, would you accept what they say without question?BobRyan
March 22, 2022
March
03
Mar
22
22
2022
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PST
Natural selection tells us only why the unfit failed to survive and not why any living beings, either fit or unfit, ever came into existence. —
Some have wondered why Polanyi’s critiques have not cut more ice.
Perhaps because, as in this case, he made the same basic error as so many other critics of the theory of evolution by accusing it of failing to achieve what it was never intended to achieve, explain the origins of life. In the article from 2009 by Michael Flannery Himmelfarb On Darwin: An Enduring Perspective After 50 Years, Part 2 the author ends one paragraph with the following question:
Nevertheless, despite skeptics, Darwin’s theory was able to rise as the reigning paradigm in biology and moreover retain that status to the present day. How so?
One answer, which Flannery fails to address, would be that criticisms of the theory of evolution in biology come overwhelmingly from non-biologists such as theologians, philosophers, lawyers and engineers. In other words, they are trespassing in fields that are outside their own domains of expertise. Thus, when faced with the fact that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists accept the theory, they resort to tangential accusations of moral failings, philosophical weaknesses, bad theology and, most tellingly of all, allegations of a conspiracy theory to prop up a fatally flawed theory by suppressing criticism and evidence. Notably, the conspiracy theorists ignore the cognitive dissonance revealed by alleging a conspiracy theory to suppress publication of critiques of evolution - by publishing critiques of evolution.Seversky
March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PST

Leave a Reply