Darwinism Intelligent Design language

Confused researchers fear that ID has infested origin of language studies

Spread the love

Hard to know what to make of this abstract and paper:

Abstract Some contemporary theories about the origin and the nature of language resort to concepts with no bearing on Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis or evo-devo perspective which are both based on the reconstruction of species morphological structure transformation. These theories, which evoke qualitative leap, cultural evolution, structure/function coevolution as esplicative principles for human evolution, in our opinion, result compatible in some points with the most recent Intelligent Design (ID) accounts. Attempting to substantiate itself as a scientific theory, the contemporary ID is ready to give up (or suspend) creationist explanation just to impeding Darwin’s fundamental idea according to which it’s possible to explain evolution only through a gradual material modification of structures. For comprehending a complex phenomenon as human language – according to ID – it’s necessary appealing to a second substance, whatever it is. This idea seems to be at the bottom of all those theories which have rejected monistic structural explanation (modification of physiological structures) for embracing functional, psychological or cultural accounts. We consider these kinds of explanation real unresolved residuals of ID, residuals nested in the heart of the most accredited scientific theories.

– Pennisi, A., & Falzone, A. (2014). Residuals of Intelligent Design in Contemporary Theories about Language Nature and Origins. HUMANA.MENTE Journal of Philosophical Studies, 7(27), 161-180.

They seem to have grasped that human language cannot be accounted for in Darwinian terms and they are mad about it. But it’s a fact.

See also: The real reason why only human beings speak: Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly. (Michael Egnor)

5 Replies to “Confused researchers fear that ID has infested origin of language studies

  1. 1
    Pearlman says:

    maybe because that (ID in language, and loss, not gain, in info) is the one historic actuality.
    it is.
    here is a how to get to the head of the class:
    ‘the origins of the speeches”, Mozeson.
    link at edenics.org
    as we reference in the YeC Moshe Emes series for torah and science alignment.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    The researchers aren’t providing a good proof that humans USE language. Yeah, they’re Italians, but Google Translate would have done a better job of translating to English than they did. Aside from grammar, the paper is the usual pile of Official PC Verbiage.

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    in fact, the Darwinian theory of evolution and its crazy absurd claims HAS INFESTED the whole world …

  4. 4
    David P says:

    Did I really just read a peer reviewed paper assigning motives to a theory? With sneers too?
    It sound so desperate.
    We need new theories about origin of language…No not like that!
    Even they recognize points being compatible with ID theory but you’re right, they sure don’t like it.

  5. 5
    ycrad says:

    During my college days I was surprised in knowing that “Societé de Linguistique de Paris” in 1866 had banned from their consideration, by bylaw(!), any inquiry into the origin of language. I can only imagine their real (ideological) motives. Frightened by where the real evidence would lead them? (Genesis? God?). This being the case, I think they were, in last instance, at the time, just renouncing a fully scientific aproach to reality and antecipating a philosophical (not informed by science) choice: the now famous Lewontin’s commitment to the narrowness of materialistic confinement (“we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”).
    I think, however, that contemporarily to the information (and real scientific) era in Biology, Linguistics, in its development, is one of the main subjects that can also raise its “hand” and point to Inteligent Design, exposing the futility of the darwinian thoughts (and of their “just so stories”) on the issue.

Leave a Reply