A Modest Proposal

_{Gil Dodgen

April 1, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

We often hear the following, in many iterations and variations, from Darwinists:

Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is as well-established as the law of gravity.
Overwhelming scientific evidence proves that evolution is true.

“Evolution” is an ill-defined term. It can mean:

1) Change over time.
2) Common ancestry.
3) Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence.

Change over time is obvious and undeniable. Common ancestry seems reasonable to me, although universal common ancestry appears to be in big trouble with mounting evidence that Darwin’s unidirectional “tree of life” never existed. It might have been something more akin to a hologram than a tree, as far as I can tell.

What Darwinists really want us to accept — without question, dissent, annoying logical/evidential challenges, or apostasy — is definition 3), so let me make a modest proposal to substitute it for “evolution,” and reveal the Darwinian bait-and-switch scam.

Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence is a fact.

Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence is as well-established as the law of gravity.

Overwhelming scientific evidence proves that random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence is true.

My question to Darwinists: How can you be foolish enough, or arrogant enough, to make such transparently ludicrous claims and expect to be taken seriously?

Comments

Seversky,
That will not prevent a significant part of the population from believing it, of course, which only goes to show that H L Mencken had a point when he observed that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the people.
People have lost elections by underestimating the intelligence of the people, and thereby lost lots of money that they spent on their campaigns. Your point of view is of course claptrap elitist nonsense that is part and parcel of a narrow worldview and a narrow experience set that is usually held by socially-inept atheistic shut-ins.Clive Hayden_{April 3, 2010
April
04
Apr
3
03
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

This bizarre new form of anti-intellectualism is most clearly seen today in the global warming/climate change arena. The thesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) demands obedience. The “consensus” of “experts” has coalesced around the ludicrous idea that the simple act of breathing, and thereby expelling CO2, can destroy the planet. Case closed.
I see Daniel Fernald's little diatribes are published in American Thinker which is appropriate as they typify a strand of anti-intellectual thinking prevalent amongst conservatives. Like the original post they are examples of the time-honored practice of beating up strawmen. You will be hard put to find any, even amongst the most ardent pan-selectionists, who assert that "Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection" and only "Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection" are responsible for all the changes we observe. Even a strong adaptationist like Richard Dawkins can write:
There are, as I am well aware ("having more than a passing acquaintance with the modern synthesis, the neutral theory and the nearly neutral theory"), various important ways in which randomness enters into evolution, in addition to mutation. The most important does indeed follow from the neutral theory, which I have publicly supported in several of my books. Mutations can drift to fixation in a population for reasons other than natural selection, and that process could indeed properly be called random.
Equally, it is simply ludicrous to allege that climatologists have ever claimed that simply our breathing was going to destroy the planet. That will not prevent a significant part of the population from believing it, of course, which only goes to show that H L Mencken had a point when he observed that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the people. Nothing is likely to change, however. The frustrated demagogues of the right will continue to batter away at their imaginary villains and conspiracies. Meanwhile scientists will try to ignore the noise and continue to unravel the complex interplay of forces which are responsible for biological and climate change. At least, we must hope so because it is highly unlikely that philosophers will serve us any better in this regard.Seversky_{April 3, 2010
April
04
Apr
3
03
2010
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

#4 and #5 Whenever I see Thomas Sowell's name comes up I have to respond. He is indeed a skilled writer and thinker. I have read "Vision of the Anointed" and "Conquests and Cultures" and found them both thoroughly worthwhile. But he drives me mad because he makes such a big thing of empirical evidence and objective analysis of relevant factors Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision and yet in his column and to some extent in his books he is often the opposite. He makes highly selective use of data, often way out of date, to support his case and often draws quite invalid conclusions. A common example is when he writes about crime. For some reason, he is very fond of drawing lessons from crime in Britain. For example, in 2008 he wrote this article which was intended to show that keeping criminals in prison is cost effective because it is cheaper than having them commit crimes. It includes this quote: "In Britain, the total cost of the prison system per year was found to be £1.9 billion, while the financial cost alone of the crimes committed per year by criminals was estimated at £60 billion." First. These figures were roughly accurate for the year 2000 - i.e. they were eight years out of date at the time of writing. Does he not have the time to look up the most recent figures? Later data is easily available on the internet. It is obvious what has happened. He is quoting from a favourite book of his ""A Land Fit for Criminals" by David Fraser and has not updated the facts in the book. (If he did he would find the cost of prison has doubled and the cost of crime has dropped about 10%). But more to the point - these figures prove nothing! If you want to compare the cost of keeping someone in prison as opposed to the cost of the crimes they might commit then you obviously want costs/person not overall costs. He may or may not have a point about the cost of prison - that's not my gripe. It is the hypocrisy of making such a big thing about data and objectivity while being so sloppy himself.Mark Frank_{April 3, 2010
April
04
Apr
3
03
2010
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Thomas Sowell is one of my (rare) heroes. He is superbly intelligent, insightful, and eloquent. Once the great accomplishments of the scientific method enabled modern civilization with all its comforts, "science" became a new religion, and the "scientists" became the priesthood. When one hears "scientists say" or "scientists all agree" he is expected to genuflect in submission before this priesthood. The only problem is that "scientists" are just as fallen as the rest of humanity, and cannot be trusted to tell the truth if the evidence might endanger their prestige, influence, or especially their research grants.GilDodgen_{April 2, 2010
April
04
Apr
2
02
2010
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Daniel Fernald further explains in: Beware the 'Expert'
. . .As the power of the technician waxes, that of the politician wanes, until he is little more than a rubber stamp. Thereafter, differences of opinion are effectively banned. From the perspective of political technique and its practitioners, such dissent is nothing more than slander, lies, and deliberate distortion. The expression of differing opinions is dangerous, and it is thus no more justifiable than yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Just as the Second Amendment is not a license to bring an AR-15 on a tour of the White House, neither does the First Amendment allow one to tell deliberate untruths about something that the experts "know" to be true. This bizarre new form of anti-intellectualism is most clearly seen today in the global warming/climate change arena. The thesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) demands obedience. The "consensus" of "experts" has coalesced around the ludicrous idea that the simple act of breathing, and thereby expelling CO2, can destroy the planet. Case closed. Thus, there is no point in allowing further questions or debate. The experts have spoken. To put this in Ellul's terms, "the one best means" of avoiding a fantasy apocalypse has been settled. The plebeians need to sit down, shut up, and open their wallets in order to bring to fruition what Thomas Sowell calls "the vision of the anointed." At this stage -- in which we currently find ourselves -- the technicians turn science against itself as part and parcel of a fascist enterprise that actively subverts and undermines the foundations of science itself. Once the basic (false) premise of "settled science" has been accepted, there is a certain perverse logic to it: "We already know the truth, so further discussion is not merely pointless; it is actively pernicious. All of those lying 'Denialists' are just trying to jiggle the lens of truth. The picture is clear, and they want to blur it. We must stop them. To let them continue to lie about the 'settled science' of AGW is to do a disservice to truth. After all, don't those who love the truth oppose liars?" Thus, shutting down debate by any means necessary is actually a virtuous, truth-preserving act. This is what the sublimely gifted Dr. Sowell calls "lying for the truth." . . .
DLH_{April 2, 2010
April
04
Apr
2
02
2010
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

off topic: Video: Amazing Coincidences Surrounding The Crucifixion Of Christ http://en.kendincos.net/video-fffhndj-amazing-coincidences-surrounding-the-crucifixion-of-christ.htmlbornagain77_{April 2, 2010
April
04
Apr
2
02
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Daniel Fernald details this fallacy in Theories, Facts, and 'Denialism' By Daniel H. Fernald, March 06, 2010 American Thinker
. . .A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a "fact" that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact. This scientist was quite adamant on the point, going so far as to assert that we inquisitive laymen on this listserv should just take his word for it, since he is an expert and we aren't. I wondered at the time how such a universally acclaimed scholar in the sciences could make an error so elementary that even my freshmen logic students could see it, while also so blithely refusing to engage in constructive discussion. The recent Climategate scandal is instructive in this regard. One sees the same lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation that have characterized the response of some global warming/climate change supporters to the legitimate questions that have been raised by scientists and laymen alike. Even those sympathetic to the claims of climate change scientists are ridiculed for asking honest questions. Such "Climate Deniers" are implicitly compared to the unbalanced and ignorant few who claim that the Holocaust never happened -- i.e. "Holocaust Deniers." Wikipedia even has an entry on "Denialism" (which has my vote for the silliest-sounding ad hominem attack ever). This linguistic three-card Monte is made possible only via the same conflation of facts and theories in which my former colleague engaged. The climate is constantly changing. That is a fact. The notion that climate change is caused by human activities is a theory that seeks to explain the fact. By calling the theory a "fact," climate change scientists have effectively foreclosed the possibility of further discussion. After all, only a fool argues about facts, right? This seemingly obvious ruse has been surprisingly effective, and the whole business hinges on the words used. "Theories" are fair game for discussion and debate because these are simply frameworks within which facts are to be understood. "Facts," conversely, just are what they are. Every reasonable person agrees that while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Thus, in order to shut down the opposition without the bother of having to argue with them, the faux scientist need only redefine what a "fact" is. . . .
So beware the slight of hand (logic) by those who state that "evolution is a fact" rather than a theory! Highly recommend studying Fernald's excellent article. Theories, Facts, and 'Denialism'DLH_{April 2, 2010
April
04
Apr
2
02
2010
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Excellent point, Gil. This "bait and switch" is precisely how the Darwinist side protects the uncritical teaching of "evolution" in public schools. They basically position all criticism of "evolution" as criticism of common ancestry, when in fact most of the opposition is to what they really mean (but rarely state) by "evolution", your definition #3.Gage_{April 2, 2010
April
04
Apr
2
02
2010
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply