Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A just-so story about the origin of religious beliefs

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This one is about stones:

By 500,000 years ago, Homo had mastered the skill of shaping stone, bone, hides, horns, and wood into dozens of tool types. Some of these tools were so symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing that some scientists speculate toolmaking took on a ritual aspect that connected Homo artisans with their traditions and community. These ritualistic behaviors may have evolved, hundreds of thousands of years later, into the rituals we see in religions.

Agustín Fuentes, “How Did Belief Evolve?” at Sapiens

Some of us would be more impressed if the authors of this type of work attributed their own beliefs to these types of sources.

How about this: Belief that there is no design in nature comes from spending a lot of time reading boring useless papers and sitting in boring useless meetings, Eventually, homo academicus evolved to believe that all nature is like that.

There’s that’s a good enough thesis. Let’s publish it. But first we need to find a journal that is not run by homo academicus himself. Nah. Let’s do a Sokal hoax on this stuff instead. Any ideas?

See also: If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?

Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?

and

Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain

Comments
@105 JVL
The article I linked to described the new species as being unable to breed with existing species, that’s a pretty strong indication is it not?
Yes, it is a pretty strong indication that G. conirostris and G. fortis were not different species to begin with.Truthfreedom
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
@112 JVL
I’m content with Mayr’s definition of species for the purposes of this conversation: groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.
So you are content with acknowledging the article is wrong, because G. conirostris and G. fortis were not reproductively isolated = they were not different species according to your BSC definition.Truthfreedom
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
@110 JVL
I agree, it is a slippery issue. But the inability to interbreed with other species is a pretty common and strong indication so I’ll start with that. And the new finches meet that criteria.
But the old ones do not meet that criteria. G. conirostris and G. fortis mated and reproduced. It is then a strong problem for the article.Truthfreedom
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
@103 JVL
What part of the Wikipedia article did the new species of finches NOT meet?
Please refer to my post @229. G. rostris and G. fortis were not different species according to the BSC definition.Truthfreedom
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
What is this alleged double standard? ID makes testable claims. Evolutionism does not.ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
KF
EG, evolutionary materialistic scientism is an un-scientific and too often pseudo-scientific ideology, ...
OK, I guess having a double standard is better than having no standard.Ed George
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
@97 JVL
How about: the inability to breed with existing species? The new species matches that criteria. From the article: https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos?ignore_amp
1st Problem Here BSC (Biological Species Concept), from Mayr:
Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.
Geospiza conirostris and Geospiza fortis mated and reproduced, so according to this BSC, they were not different species to begin with.Truthfreedom
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
EG, as usual, (who has refused to get into the scientific details time after time), engages in pointless rhetoric and claims that I slandered "thousands of hard working scientists". That claim is unmitigated hogwash I laid out my exact reasons for exactly why Darwinian evolution itself should, by all rights, be considered a unfalsifiable pseudoscience instead of as a testable science. Feigning hurt feelings for "thousands of hard working scientists " is not a valid refutation of those exact reasons. Furthermore, Darwinism is absolutely useless as a fruitful heuristic to those "thousands of hard working scientists". If EG disagrees then he is free to try to prove otherwise. But alas, EG modus operandi is pointless rhetoric, not a substantive search for the truth! But anyways, to further prove that Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience, Francis Bacon, whom many consider to be the founder of the scientific method, put the ‘fruitfulness’ criteria for determining whether something is to be considered science or not this way,,,
"Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy" Francis Bacon - widely regarded as the founder of the scientific method,, a devout Anglican Christian
That is to say, truthful scientific theories, as opposed to pseudosciences, have a history of deepening man’s understanding of Nature, and thus providing man with beneficial technological breakthroughs because of that deepened understanding of nature (For instance, Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon). Evolution, unlike those other scientific theories, has completely failed on this account to foster research and deliver technological breakthroughs. No less than Jerry Coyne himself agrees with this,
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).
As Philip Skell noted, "Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
“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. 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
Here are a few more quotes to drive this point home that Darwinian evolution is absolutely useless to experimental biology
“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, 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 superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000). “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)
In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to much medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs (not to mention many other failed 'scientific predictions' (Cornelius Hunter).) And that is not even including the horrid social consequence Darwinism fostered by providing a fraudulent scientific basis for Marxism which resulted in the death of a about 200 million people in the 20th century
Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/
On the other hand, Intelligent Design, far from having disastrous social consequences, and hindering scientific discovery as Darwinian evolution has done, is found to be a ‘driver of science’:
Intelligent Design 3.0 ? What's the future of Intelligent Design research?  Dr. Stephen Meyer gives us a glimpse starting at the 38:00 minute mark of the following video: Intelligent Design 3.0 - Stephen C. Meyer - video https://youtu.be/dvwBaD8-00w?t=2277   “It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.” Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – David Snoke – 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3
And to repeat what I stated earlier
Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists on wikipedia and elsewhere, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or on the presupposition of Darwinian materialism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Verse:
Matthew 7 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire
bornagain77
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
EG, evolutionary materialistic scientism is an un-scientific and too often pseudo-scientific ideology, insofar as the latter has any meaning. That's the problem, it has become little more than an ideological smear word that shuts off serious reflection on the question-begging and poor inductive reasoning involved. The scientism in particular makes the blunder that big-S Science effectively monopolises or dominates knowledge and efficacious methods of creating knowledge. When, epistemology -- the study of knowledge and its conditions -- is properly a branch of philosophy. The Evolutionary materialism is self-refuting. The proper answer is to recognise the epistemological and logic issues, avoid question begging impositions and recognise that everyday, weak form knowledge claims are defeatable so should not be turned into indoctrination. That includes, under colours of education. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
There aren't any hard working scientists who use Darwinian evolution for anything.ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
BA77
I will NOT back off my claim that Darwinian evolution is in fact a pseudoscience!
KF, are you going to stand by while thousands of hard working scientists are being slandered yet get mad when ID is slandered?Ed George
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
JVL, there is a reason why Wikipedia has forfeited academic credibility, even though it may be the no 5 or 6 web site. The major media are in the process of a drastic loss of credibility. Soon, education and textbook publishers will follow suit. Then, the courts. After that, Katy, bar the door, here's the blunderbuss. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
KF, 221: Well, then I suspect the Wikipedia statement will stand. That'll make it harder to gain acceptance. Lots of work to do then.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
BA77, my point is, that pseudoscience has become essentially meaningless, an empty agitprop word of abuse, much like X-phobia and, increasingly, Nazi. Far better to expose the inductive reasoning failures and ideological question begging involved in evolutionary materialistic scientism; then challenge, why should I submit to having my kids indoctrinated in such question begging, self-refuting fallacies? KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
JVL, no competent lawyer in the US would advise bringing a defamation suit once the victim of defamation can in any wise be construed a public enough figure; unless they have irrefutable evidence of a confession of malice or the like . . . and as malice is a state of mind it is next to unprovable. That is how corrupt US defamation law has become. Sadly, even actual proof of the falsity of charges will not suffice to recover a reputation. The current climate of guilt by accusation is the natural result and it will not end well. The media lynch mobs and lawfare tactics using star chamber courts we have seen, hailed by major media outlets, point to where this ends. Beyond a certain point, someone is going to reach the pitch of rage beyond all control and will resort to the US equivalent of rule 303 at 600 yards, live on camera. Something like that has already happened with the attack on FRC and the attack on Congressmen at baseball practice. A journalist was already shot dead on camera (though that may have been over personal issues?). I shudder to think of where it will go beyond that point, but that is the sort of fire that is being recklessly played with. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Au Contraire kf, I laid out valid reasons exactly why Darwinian evolution should, by all rights, be considered a pseudoscience. Therefore it is NOT a false accusation but a true statement. i.e. I DID NOT SLANDER!
slan·der /?sland?r/ the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
I will NOT back off my claim that Darwinian evolution is in fact a pseudoscience!bornagain77
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
KF, 217: BA77, pseudoscience is in effect a dismissive label with little merit. I suggest, deal with the actual specific challenges with inductive reasoning. Thank you. You are being fair and consistent.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
BA77, 215: In short, Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience that makes astrology look tame by comparison: I wonder if KF will consider this slanderous? We shall see eh?JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
BA77, pseudoscience is in effect a dismissive label with little merit. I suggest, deal with the actual specific challenges with inductive reasoning. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
PS: 203 above https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-just-so-story-about-the-origin-of-religious-beliefs/#comment-694407 The pseudoscience concept is seriously problematic.kairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
JVL (despite the obvious uncorrected slander that 'ID is a pseudoscience' that he let stand previously, (as outlined by kf), now 'promises',
can I just say, definitively that I will not refer to ID as a pseudoscience.
Unlike JVL, or any other Darwinist, who can provide no valid reason why ID should be considered a pseudoscience, I WILL DEFINITELY refer to Darwinian evolution as a pseudoscience, and I will DEFINITELY provide valid reasons why Darwinism should be considered a pseudoscience! We cannot, as far as experimental science itself is concerned, ever be 100% certain that a certain theory is undeniably true, i.e. proven, but we can be certain that a theory has been falsified by experimental evidence. i.e. disproven. As Einstein himself noted,
“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.” – Einstein
And as Richard Feynman stated,
"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Richard Feynman
In fact the ‘potential’ ability of a theory to be falsified by experimentation is exactly why Popper’s falsification criteria is considered the primary criteria in science for judging whether a theory is even to be considered scientific or not.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Since Darwinists simply refuse to accept any of the many falsifying evidences against their theory, then that means that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a scientific theory in the first place, (at least how Darwinists themselves treat their theory). Here are a few falsifications of Darwinism that Darwinian atheists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory,
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. As Berlinski noted,
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinian evolution, is very much a falsifiable scientific theory. Another major failing of Darwinian evolution that disqualifies it from being considered a proper scientific theory is that Darwinian evolution has no known law in the universe for Darwinists to base their math on in order to build realistic models of their theory, As Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” once stated “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
Since Darwinists have no known law in the universe to base their math on in order to build a realistic model, then, as Robert Marks explains, “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.",,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science directly, or almost directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.
Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas – El Paso – May 2012 Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) to base its math on to build realistic models upon in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
Thus again, by all rights, Intelligent Design qualifies as a rigorous and testable science that is 'potentially' falsifiable, whereas Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science by any reasonable measure one might wish to invoke to tell if a theory is even scientific or not. In short, Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience that makes astrology look tame by comparison:
Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
bornagain77
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
EG, I addressed the pseudoscience concept step by step above [using Wikipedia's discussion], including on how it is a poor fit to the design controversy; and the basic issues on inductive reasoning. I suggest that you respond in that light. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
KF
JVL, your I doubt it is slander should be reviewed in light of the problems with the pseudoscience concept. KF
When someone refers to ID as pseudoscience you declare it slander, yet I don’t remember you raising the same accusation over the numerous times on this site that evolution has been called a pseudoscience.
The actual balance on inductive merits is also relevant. When science is ideologised, it begins to lose credibility, thus value. Which, for cause, is already happening.
Yet when people on this site repeatedly equate evolutionary science with religion and ideology, you remain strangely silent. If you expect a certain level of respect, civility and honesty from those who disagree with you, a good start would be to apply the same standard to those who agree with you. Food for thought.Ed George
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
KF
However, when one — or a society as a whole — cannot live in general accord with the tenets and implications of a worldview, that is a sign that it is a root of chaotic error.
I agree. However, a desire to live within a stable and supportive society necessitates tenets of behaviour that form the basis of a worldview. I don’t see how a religion is required, although I can see how it can be used (and abused) to standardize certain behaviours and thoughts within a society.Ed George
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
KF 209: your I doubt it is slander should be reviewed in light of the problems with the pseudoscience concept. I really don't know, obviously and I would be very interested if someone chose to bring a case against Wikipedia. And can I just say, definitively that I will not refer to ID as a pseudoscience.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
KF, 207: I would like to think your pessimism is misplaced but, sadly, I too am dismayed at many recent developments especially regarding legal matters. I'd like to have 'faith' in the system but . . .JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
JVL, your I doubt it is slander should be reviewed in light of the problems with the pseudoscience concept. The actual balance on inductive merits is also relevant. When science is ideologised, it begins to lose credibility, thus value. Which, for cause, is already happening. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
JV L, the relevant version is of course the English one, that's where the issues are. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
JVL, US defamation law has been so corrupted that it has little point unless truly unusual circumstances obtain. For me, the eye-opener case was the Gen Westmoreland suit over the Vietnam war. There is now, clearly, a culture of I can slander as I feel like in the US, which is now corrupting even the Constitution . . . and undermining recognition of the ever present natural law that rightly demands truth, prudence, fairness and justice so also the right to innocent reputation. Such cannot end well. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
So, if Dr Günter Bechly still has an entry on the German Wikipedia can we say he was expunged from Wikipedia? Perhaps the statement needs to be amended? And it brings up some questions: are the different language versions of Wikipedia completely independent? Did something happen with the English language Dr Günter Bechly entree have some particular controversy associated with it that caused it to be purged? It would be good to know.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 9

Leave a Reply