At Creation-Evolution Headlines: Darwinian evolution as an endless tease

Part of this also stems from the fact that much of what evolutionists do is observational (fossils, etc.), rather than experimental. That puts their claims into a different branch of knowledge from physicists, etc. But evolutionists want so badly to claim predictions, falsifiability, etc., to be like the "big boys", so they overreach and then don't want to admit later that they failed. Some humility would go a long way. Not that I'm expecting that of course; jobs are at stake after all. EDTA

Seversky, you didn't even read the article referred to before commenting, right? If you had, you would have seen that your kind of comment was part of the class of statements that the article was written about. Do try to keep up. Belfast

Sev

And if evolutionary biologists refused to adjust the theory to accommodate new data who would be amongst the first to accuse them of being dogmatic and inflexible?

There's a lot to unpack in that one question. But I think you're missing the point. First, one thing we do not hear is that they are "adjusting the theory". Instead, they use manipulative language. If they were honest, they would say: "We claimed X and we found Y - we were wrong". Instead, they either deny that they "claimed X" (when it is clear they did claim it), or they will say "Y is basically the same as X". In either case, they do not "adjust the theory" - they claim that the theory is unchanged. Keep in mind, these are people who have claimed for decades "there is nothing to debate" about evolutionary theory. That's just dishonest. But beyond that, if they made a bold claim and they had to "adjust" it later - their claim was wrong. They need to deal with that. Someone needs to take ownership for the failure. Instead, they just want continual praise, even when contradictory evidence comes along. "Praise us because we learned something new!" But again, these are some of the most arrogant people on earth who have demanded (under the force of law in some cases) that people have to accept their theory. But when it is actually found inadequate (keeping in mind, they will only accept their own falsifications, not falsifications that have come from their opponents), they pretend that there is nothing to change.

Why is it so difficult to understand that science is about constructing explanations around existing data because that’s all we have.

Science has to start by valuing the truth. You're saying that science is about "constructing explanations". But that's not how it really works in reality. Science is about formulating doctrines - like the evolutionary doctrine. People are forced to accept this doctrine, even when it is contradicted. If it was simply a matter of saying "we think this might be a solution, but we're open to other ideas" that would be very good. But it doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

They’re the best that can be done at any given time with the data available at that time but if you’re looking for “eternal truths” stick to religion or philosophy.

I'd agree except that scientism has removed the need for religion or philosophy and therefore scientific truths in that world view are the ultimate. Silver Asiatic

Sev: "And if evolutionary biologists refused to adjust the theory to accommodate new data you would be among the first to accuse of being dogmatic and inflexible?" Telling ad hoc just-so stories to cover up embarrassing experimental evidence that contradicts, even falsifies, core presuppositions of Darwin's theory is, (contrary to what you want to believe Seversky), not a sign that you are dealing with a robust scientific theory. Instead, 'devising "numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications", as Darwinists are currently doing with their 'old theory', is, according to Thomas Kuhn, a sure sign that you are dealing with a 'old theory' that is on the verge of being replaced via a 'paradigm shift'.

Unanswered Questions: New York Times Highlights the Benefits of Teaching “Ignorance” in Science Sarah Chaffee - September 4, 2015 Excerpt: In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Thomas) Kuhn stated that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict (Kuhn [86] pg. 78).” But eventually, given enough anomalies, the old theory will be replaced ,(i.e. which Kuhn termed to be a 'paradigm shift'). https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/unanswered_ques/

And according to Imre Lakatos, ''fabricating' stories to cover up experimental falsifications of a theory is a sure sign that you are dealing with a "degenerating programme"

“In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

Imre Lakatos even stated that, "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific"

"nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". - Imre Lakatos - 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

Even Karl Popper himself called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

As should be needless to say Seversky, having, arguably, three of the most prominent philosophers of science of the 20th century all saying that Darwinism is on the verge of collapse, and even that it does not even qualify as a scientific theory in the first place is, contrary to what you want to believe, not a good sign for the supposed 'robustness' of Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. Verse:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Of supplemental note: Here are a few falsifications of Darwin's theory that most Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory,

1. 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’. 2. 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 be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. 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. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. 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). 6. 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. 7. 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.” 8. 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.” 9. 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’. 10. 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! 11. 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!. 12. 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. 13. 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! 14. 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. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

bornagain77

And if evolutionary biologists refused to adjust the theory to accommodate new data who would be amongst the first to accuse them of being dogmatic and inflexible? Why is it so difficult to understand that science is about constructing explanations around existing data because that's all we have. They're the best that can be done at any given time with the data available at that time but if you're looking for "eternal truths" stick to religion or philosophy. Seversky

Contradictory evidence always "sheds new light" on Darwinian theory. There's continually something "different than previously thought", because "that's how science works". The new finding contradicts previous claims and by that we "gained understanding". Silver Asiatic

Endless receding horizons are also a standard swindle trick, as well as a standard bureaucratic trick. Swindle version: The stock or the inheritance or the bitcoin will PAY OFF BIG if you just keep buying and HODLing. Agency version: We will solve this problem if you just keep increasing our budget and our powers. Evolutionists are in academia, so they're more bureaucrats than bitcoiners. polistra