Evolution is a Scientific Fact: Day 74

"Evolution is a fact, fact, fact" (pound the dais for emphasis) "Can you tell me how you know it is a fact?" "Well, no, not exactly, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fact, fact, fact!" (more pounding) "Can you at least tell me which mechanism of evolution is considered established with no strong debates about how it works?" "Umm..that would be, nat..no..um, er,..let's see...um...well, like I said, evolution is a fact, fact, fact! (pounding dais with both hands) "I see...so, you can't tell me how you know evolution is a fact, and you can't name a single mechanism of evolution over which there isn't all sorts of serious scientific debate and disagreement about how it works. But, evolution is a fact, fact, fact, as you say. Thank you for clearing that up!" DonaldM

It’s quite simple, really: “Nature” can’t do what Darwin wants her to do. “Nature,” we are told, is capable of bringing such marvelous organs as eye, brain, kidney into being from virtual nothingness. These astonishing organs are said to have had their inception from no known or identified cause and to have been nascent in living animals for possibly millions of years before they became sufficiently developed to function and add value to being. Just one little problem with this narrative: it assigns poetic value to “nature.” If matter is all there is, and, as Darwin assures us, no divine intelligence is guiding the development of being, then there quite simply is no such thing as “nature” to perform the miracle of bringing eye, brain, kidney into being from nothingness. For an honest materialist, “nature” does not exist. It is as foolish to speak of “nature” as it is to speak of God. The word “nature” has had a hypnotic hold on the Western mind ever since Aristotle, but he was entitled to assign teleological powers to “nature” because he believed that the good was immanent in being. He saw the sensuous universe as the actualization of the good. He used the term “nature” teleologically, but all sympathetic readers understood that he really had a transcendent formative power in mind. In Aristotle, the word “nature” is poetic. It has transcendent resonance. But no poetry is allowed if the transcendent is eliminated from nature, as in Darwin’s origins narrative. “Nature” has formative power if it is used to stand in for transcendent causes, but no such power can be found in nature for its own sake. Without God, “nature” is nothing. It is all matter and no form, all potential and no actuality. Our modern materialists have co-opted Aristotle’s poetic use of the term “nature” to make their origins narrative seem reasonable. They are sentimental dreamers, one and all. Nature is nothing without God—hard, cruel, narrow, utterly lacking in poetic license. It has no gracious power to tolerate the development of organs that are useless until they are fully developed. Darwin’s use of the term “nature” is teleological, a remnant of Aristotle and Locke and Newton and Kant. But nature has no goals in mind outside of the realm of poetry. Nature per se is pure matter and lacks the formative power to bring forth the miracles of eye, brain, kidney. Deprived of poetic resonance, “nature” is nothing at all. allanius

@Lars, If Larry Moran admitted that, then it needs to be captured, locked in, printed and saved. Most baby and many mature evolutionist are talking about macro-evolution when calling it a scientific fact. Or, at the very least, they allow the reader to "think" it with their rhetoric and without explanation. If this is the admission that others would follow, then it would be a victory for Truth, which is good for all sides and groups, especially children. DATCG

It's startling to me that Hunter's blog post has elicited from Larry Moran the statement that only microevolution is claimed to be a fact by scientists. Hunter is confident that Moran is wrong about what scientists claim. And certainly the public understands evolutionists to be claiming that undirected origin of all taxa is a scientific fact. But if Moran is right, and if other evolutionists followed him and especially if the distinction were made clear in public claims, this would be a significant victory for ID: macroevolution is no longer claimed to be a scientific fact. Yes, that should have been obvious to begin with, but when you have only straws to grasp at, you will grasp them hard. lars

Updated Comprehension Origin And Nature Of Natural Selection Longevity Schmongevity Genes It's Not The Procedure, But The Concept That Is Absurd Longevity Genes Search Reflects Science Decadence http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/320/122.page#6368 A. For most centenarians, longevity is written in the DNA. A study of people who live past 100 reveals many genetic paths to a long life. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60772/title/For_most_centenarians%2C_longevity_is_written_in_the_DNA B. Longevity, survival, natural selection, evolution - Merriam-Webster OnLine Longevity = a : a long duration of individual life b : length of life - Longevity is about survival, which is about "natural selection", which is about energy constrainment, which is about life evolution, which is about cosmic evolution. Every mass is destined to become energy to fuel the ongoing cosmic expansion. This is why organisms and black holes etc., eat, digest energy in mass forms, to avoid-postpone conversion to energy. This is evolution, which is natural selection, which is survival, which is longevity. - All mass formats age. Life is a mass format. Searching for longevity genes is searching for evolution genes... C. The search for longevity genes is a reflection of the 20th-21st centuries science decadence Its concepts and terminology reflect the abandonment of basic science for adoption of the pretentious cancerous capitalist 20th-21st century technology culture. Dov Henis (Comments From The 22nd Century) 03.2010 Updated Life Manifest http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065 Cosmic Evolution Simplified http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427 Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4887 EOTOE, Embarrassingly obvious TOE, expanding the horizon beyond Darwin And Einstein http://www.molecularfossils.com/2010/05/formal-test-of-theory-of-universal.html Dov Henis

Yes there is change. From a common origin came very different colours of skin. Yet evolution is still about denying the historic opinion on origins from the bible especially in the Protestant civilization. The conclusions of evolutionism are not facts. The minor cases of selection on bacteria etc are only cause and effect issues. It could only be that way. How could it not. Still this is within kinds and not hinting of the great changes needed for great change. evolution today is about the power of mutations to create the wonder of biology. Selection is an afterevent. Evolution fails because it asks for the impossible. zillions of mutations being selected to the present glory. To make great conclusions in great subjects requires greart evidence. Where is it and when is it coming? Robert Byers

Lock: Thank you for the note. Yes, the responses of evolutionists help to reveal further the problems. The comments are helpful for all to see what this is all about. Cornelius Hunter

Very Nice Granville :) CH, reading your blog and the comments, I am fascinated by how (and after so much time and debate) your opponents speak to you as if you are ignorant of the issues, and have no appriciation for the angles by which to position TE. At this point, it seems that it is frequently more about politics than legitimate debate. The politics of personal destruction is so in vogue. I say this, because it is patently obvious to anyone that 'change over time' (ie. natural selection) is a fact. The very first modern argument for design I heard made this perfectly clear. So what is all this feigning that ID advocates are somehow deaf, dumb, and blind. From my position, it was prescisely because ID arguments put the evidence of change into a more coherent prespective that gave it such explanatory power. That was the 'ah ha' moment for me. Appearently, many think that if they can just get everyone to agree with 'change over time', then the abiogenesis of life will be assumed to have occurred. The strategy must be something like this: 'get them to admit evolution by any standard, and the origins problem will just fall into place in the minds of the masses'. Do they forget that that depends upon the philosphical view of the individual in the crowd? Why... one gets the impression that there is no other way to look at things. I am just a fan out here compared to most of you, and I am very inconsistent in my optimism and courage while watching and participating in these cultural struggles; but, at the moment, I say go ahead and play their game. The more they talk about it the better, because (concerning abiogenesis and macro-evolution) no-one denies that inorganic chemical consituents change over time. What concerns us is really is the form that any change takes in observation after observation. Rocks are still rocks, and RNA is still RNA. Keep plugging away at the distinctions between the 'missing kind of change' required for materialistic origin vs. change observed. People get it. People grasp the distinction in direction. And not that you need reminding from me, but don't forget how crucial the philosphical lens of the individuals in the audience is. Leave that to the opposition. Lock

Cornelius, It is an indisputable fact that the PDE2D finite element program evolved from a primitive prototype (ca 1974); this is obvious from the similarities between each version and previous versions (it is also obvious that a designer would not need 36 years to write such a program!). The only minor issues remaining are questions about how software evolves. Granville Sewell