Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Not this again?: Darwin’s fans claim they are not Darwinists

Spread the love

Here’s yet another discussion on whether “Darwinism” really exists, at the ID Facebook page.

Some of us find these discussions astonishing because we have run into any number of convinced Darwinists (or Darwinians or neo-Darwinians or whatever). As a rule of thumb, there is no proposition so foolish that, if it is dressed in Darwinian language, they will not entertain it.

Conversely, there is no doubt they will entertain.

Some of us think those facts mean something.

Atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor encapsulated the matter when he wrote, in What Darwin Got Wrong,

A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication, is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem. Entire departments, journals and research centres now work on this principle. In consequence, social Darwinism thrives, as do epistemological Darwinism, psychological Darwinism, evolutionary ethics – and even, heaven help us, evolutionary aesthetics. If you seek their monuments, look in the science section of your daily paper. We have both spent effort and ink rebutting some of the most egregious of these neo-Darwinist spin-offs, but we think that what is needed is to cut the tree at its roots: To show that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed. That’s what this book is about.

– Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. xvi.

Meanwhile, Pos-Darwinista provides us with a number of citations from the literature of the term Darwinist and similar terms up to 2005. Wonder what a further search would show.

Maybe the term is declining; terms sometimes do. The evidence would be interesting either way. But we need evidence to settle the matter, not bluster or hurt feelings.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Follow UD News at Twitter!

29 Replies to “Not this again?: Darwin’s fans claim they are not Darwinists

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Do we call people who believe that the earth revolves around the sun Galileoans? Or people who believe that they will be hurt if they fall from a height Newtonians?

    Darwin proposed a theory to explain the mechanism behind evolution over 100 years ago. It has been significantly modified since then. We acknowledge Darwin’s contributions, as we do with other scientists who have changed the way we look at things.

    But the ID faith insists on using terms like “Darwinist” and “Darwinian” in an attempt to imply that modern evolutionary theory is stuck in the Victorian era. But what should we expect from a bunch of Creationists? (Irony intended).

  3. 3
    groovamos says:

    Bogey – conventional evolutionary theory, like all ideologies and religions, depends upon a figurehead and accompanying legend for its maintenance. This figurehead will never go away (i.e. out of favor), or else the ideology goes away.

    In your case there was this 19th century wealthy non-scientist who converted out of his legacy religion to yours, scientific materialism. He had the money, motivation, influence, cleverness, and writing ability to create the mythology needed to support the ideology adopted by him in his adulthood. Lenin was another ideologue who promoted his personally created mythology for his role as the ideological figurehead of his adopted ideology.

    So you see, Darwinian dependence on and obeisance to this iconic figurehead validates calling you a Darwinist. If you do academic work in the life sciences and you declare your break with Darwin, your career would be in serious jeopardy, just like a break with Islam would jeopardize a Muslims’s life in numerous places in the world. And especially if you begin to relate the story as I’m relating it here.

    On the other hand, Newtonian mechanics does not require adherence to scientific materialism, or any other religion, so Newtonian mechanics is thus not an ideology inviting those who believe it to live as ideologues with a reverence for the figurehead, and a cause to live for and fight for like yours.

    Side note: I have at times amused myself observing many self-contradictions of materialism and here is one I find amusing. Materialists are highly motivated to discover extraterrestrial life, and I have personally heard them say they think it would obliterate Judeo-Christian theology if found (likely the major motivator here). The more so if intelligent life were encountered. But never have I ever heard materialist speculation that any intelligent aliens may possibly exhibit a little condescension and derision towards the Darwinian cult with its revered icon at the center of it, and all of the self-importance of its true believers with their constant bitter rancor and invective against the non-believers over the many decades since the founding of the cult.

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    Acartia_bogart:

    Do we call people who believe that the earth revolves around the sun Galileoans? Or people who believe that they will be hurt if they fall from a height Newtonians?

    Probably. But so what?

    Darwin proposed a theory to explain the mechanism behind evolution over 100 years ago. It has been significantly modified since then. We acknowledge Darwin’s contributions, as we do with other scientists who have changed the way we look at things.

    Was Darwin wrong?

    People who fail to acknowledge that Galileo was wrong might be called Galileoans and people who fail to acknowledge that Newton was wrong might be called Newtonians.

    And people who fail to acknowledge that Darwin was wrong might be called Darwinians.

    But the ID faith insists on using terms like “Darwinist” and “Darwinian” in an attempt to imply that modern evolutionary theory is stuck in the Victorian era. But what should we expect from a bunch of Creationists? (Irony intended).

    There’s no irony here, merely stubborn ignorance.

    Modern evolutionary theory is stuck in the Victorian era because it continues to remain the case that the only alternative to design is “design without a designer” (aka Darwinism).

    Wake up.

  5. 5
    MrCollins says:

    #2.
    What name would you propose for this group of people. There must be a classification and defining characteristic as well as a name to accompany it. Then it must also be widely accepted and understood.

    If you say you believe in the theory of evolution, then being a believer of Darwin, an accurate definitive term is Darwinism or Darwinist. That would be a person who believes in the idea proposed by Darwin. It also properly encapsulates the people who agree with it and excludes those who do not fairly well. I do not know of another term that everyone knows and understands.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    “It just happened, that’s all” is not an alternative to design.

    It [Darwinian theory] has been significantly modified since then.

    Which of these significant modifications to Darwinian theory explains “the appearance of design” better than Darwinism?

    It [Darwinian theory] has been significantly modified since then.

    How has Darwin’s theory of common descent been significantly modified since it was proposed by Darwin?

  7. 7
    Dr JDD says:

    Was Neo-Darwinism coined by a theist or a person who believed in the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution? If Darwinists call themselves that and refer to mechanism as “darwinian” than what shall we call them?

    Further it is a very important distinction. I personally believe the real motivation for not wanting creationists and IDists to not use the term is because then they are only stuck with using evolution. Then they can easily embarrass the user of that term and mock them for not accepting it.

    e.g.
    “I don’t accept evolution”
    “Evolution has been proved many times! Just look at antibiotic resistance! You are stupid for not accepting evolution! I am justified in not engaging with you anymore because you don’t even accept observed facts.”
    -Darwinist leaves-
    “Actually I meant Darwinian evolution…”
    -Darwinists in the distance- “that’s not a thing…”
    “I meant macro-evolution”
    -Darwinists on the horizon- ” no one in science even uses that term. All your arguments are rejected. I win!”

    Something like that.

  8. 8
    wd400 says:

    Neo Darwinism, as the term is used now, was coined my by Romanes who would probably have included himself in the group. But it was invented to distinguish some theories of evolution from others (and indeed from Darwin’s own “lamarkian” tendencies).

    In science, Darwinian processes are those that are dominated by natural selection, and especially positive selection. It’s silly to subsume all of evolutionary biology under that term, but I don’t imagine anyone here will stop.

  9. 9
    humbled says:

    A classic case of denialism.

    These poor souls are so entrenched in this new age Darwin cult their objectivity and ability to think criticality has been impaired. One only has to read their ridiculous articles, and many of their comments on UD, to see this first hand.

    It is sad when you think about it really. Many of the seem really intelligent but just cannot recognise the huge elephant standing in the room.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    A-b:

    Do we call people who believe that the earth revolves around the sun Galileoans [Copernicans or Keplerians, cf. here . . . ]?

    Actually, we do speak of the Copernican Hypothesis and perhaps even revolution, indeed the impact of that new view of our world was the root of the other meaning of revolution.

    We are all Copernicans as modified by Kepler and Newton now; then as influenced by Einstein et al. As in, the C17 Scientific revo that gave rise to classical Physics, and the C20 revo that gave rise to modern physics.

    The difference with Darwin is that he advocated a theory of origins beyond actual observation, requiring inference to best explanation as inductive methodology. Unfortunately, he proposed a mechanism and his successors propose mechanisms that do not pass the vera causa test of showing actual capacity to produce an effect. Then, this is often compounded by imposition of a priori materialism as Philip Johnson so eloquently highlighted in replying to Richard Lewontin:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    There are classical Darwinists, and there are neo-Darwinists, but eh lineal descent is obvious. And the cluster of variations around that still dominant school, are quite obviously related.

    The old you are making up the terminology rhetorical tactic fails. So does the let’s plit a few hairs and demand that only some vanishingly small group get the label. Bigtime.

    KF

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    pardon typos I need to get back to rest this morning!

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    kf as to,

    “We are all Copernicans as modified by Kepler and Newton now”

    Not to be trivial, but, I do indeed believe the earth revolves around the sun, but as to the Copernican principle, i.e. the belief that the earth has no special position in the universe, I am no longer Copernican.

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf
    Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles were actually verified by Planck.

    A Large Scale Pattern from Optical Quasar Polarization Vectors – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6118.pdf

    Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0924.pdf

    Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe – Oct. 2010
    Excerpt: Their solution? That the acceleration seen is due to an expanding shockwave that occurred after the Big Bang–a shockwave that would have originated very near the Earth.
    Did you catch that? A shockwave, plowing through the universe and spreading out the galaxies that originated near the Earth.,,,
    ,,,the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity” — a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.,,,
    ,,,the biggest strike against it in the eyes of physicists? According to the article, it is the fact that it puts the earth at the center of the universe. As one particular cosmologist, Michael Wood-Vasey, is quoted in the Seed article concerning such a possibility: “It’s very philosophically disconcerting… It’s not very satisfying.”
    http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.....-universe/

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video
    https://vimeo.com/98189061

    Moreover, quantum mechanics goes one step further and puts not the earth but conscious observers at the center of the universe,,,

    Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.
    And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-designer/

    As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not ‘central’, I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting ‘poetic reflection’ of our true spiritual condition. Please reflect on this for a moment, in regards to God’s ‘kingdom of light’, are we not to keep in mind that our lives are to be centered on the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God’s kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on the temporal pleasure this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than the lasting pleasure of what heaven has to offer?

    Matthew 16:26
    And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Here is a quote from evangelist Louie Giglio which I think captures this ‘poetic reflection’ of our true spiritual condition

    You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God.
    – Louie Giglio [16, 16a]

    Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparatively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for ‘the privileged planet’ principle, and universal geometric considerations, which reflects God’s craftsmanship, whereas the centrality found for each “soul” in the universe is found to be of primary significance,,, In other words:

    ,,,”Is anything worth more than your soul?”
    Matthew 16:26

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Verse and music:

    Psalm 49:8
    For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever

    Natalie Grant – Your Great Name – live
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRREa_pQFcs

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    kf as to,

    “We are all Copernicans as modified by Kepler and Newton now”

    Not to be trivial, but, I do indeed believe the earth revolves around the sun, but as to the Copernican principle, i.e. the belief that the earth has no special position in the universe, I am no longer Copernican.

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf
    Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles were actually verified by Planck.

    A Large Scale Pattern from Optical Quasar Polarization Vectors – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6118.pdf

    Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0924.pdf

    Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe – Oct. 2010
    Excerpt: Their solution? That the acceleration seen is due to an expanding shockwave that occurred after the Big Bang–a shockwave that would have originated very near the Earth.
    Did you catch that? A shockwave, plowing through the universe and spreading out the galaxies that originated near the Earth.,,,
    ,,,the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity” — a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.,,,
    ,,,the biggest strike against it in the eyes of physicists? According to the article, it is the fact that it puts the earth at the center of the universe. As one particular cosmologist, Michael Wood-Vasey, is quoted in the Seed article concerning such a possibility: “It’s very philosophically disconcerting… It’s not very satisfying.”
    http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.....-universe/

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video
    https://vimeo.com/98189061

    Moreover, quantum mechanics goes one step further and puts not the earth but conscious observers at the center of the universe,,,

    Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.
    And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial…
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-designer/

    As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not ‘central’, I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting ‘poetic reflection’ of our true spiritual condition. Please reflect on this for a moment, in regards to God’s ‘kingdom of light’, are we not to keep in mind that our lives are to be centered on the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God’s kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on the temporal pleasure this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than the lasting pleasure of what heaven has to offer?

    Matthew 16:26
    And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Here is a quote from evangelist Louie Giglio which I think captures this ‘poetic reflection’ of our true spiritual condition

    You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God.
    – Louie Giglio [16, 16a]

    Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparatively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for ‘the privileged planet’ principle, and universal geometric considerations, which reflects God’s craftsmanship, whereas the centrality found for each “soul” in the universe is found to be of primary significance,,, In other words:

    ,,,”Is anything worth more than your soul?”
    Matthew 16:26

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

    Verse and music:

    Psalm 49:8
    For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever

    Natalie Grant – Your Great Name – live
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRREa_pQFcs

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Ah, BA77:

    You put your finger on a key difference.

    Copernicanism I moved us from the SUMP of the universe up into the heavens with the stars. I phrase it that way to correct a culturally loaded misunderstanding as my linked discussion also does.

    This has no implications for an agenda of we must be ordinary, on a ho hum planet in a ho hum solar system on an ordinary Pop II star, in a typical galaxy, and so forth.

    The evidence is, our planet is extraordinarily privileged and rare. Our sort of star is not just ho hum, and a galactic habitable zone is not to be sneezed at either.

    Copernicanism II seems to me too often a tad ideologically loaded.

    And the great silence is raising serious questions when we reflect on the Drake eqn type scenario.

    KF

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Mysteries of the Large-Angle Microwave Sky – Dragan Huterer – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc6K32ZaHas

  16. 16
    TSErik says:

    It’s all an Alinsky-ite game.

    It is. Anything that is an “-ism” can be debated, a matter of opinion, or shown to be flat wrong. The wish of the Darwinists is to have their worldview accepted as an axiom. Free of the burdens of proof, or the constraints of actual scrutiny, and simply an accepted idea, like heliocentricity, or gravity.

    Even our friend above, Mr. Booger, proved my point when he equated the ideas together. To him, it is just as silly to apply a label, or “-ism” to those who accept gravity, as it is to apply an “-ism” to those who subscribe to neo-Darwinian theory.

    Removing the “-ism” and planting an idea into the “it just is” category in society is a powerful thing. It erases the ability to question the idea, and frees it from the greater burden of proof.

  17. 17
    Acartia_bogart says:

    A classic case of denialism.

    These poor souls are so entrenched in this ancient middle eastern cult their objectivity and ability to think criticality has been impaired. One only has to read their ridiculous articles, and many of their comments on UD, to see this first hand.

    Humbled, I corrected a couple of your typos. There is no need to thank me. I was happy to do it.

    With regard to Darwin, he is still recognized because he got it partially correct. The mechanism of natural selection that he described, and provided reams of observations to support, is still an important aspect of modern evolutionary theory. Even HGT, which UD flaunts as a falsification of Darwinian evolution, does no such thing because Darwin did not know about genetics. All he knew was that natural selection acts on the variation found in all populations. As WD400 said, Darwin had not ruled out the retention of acquired characteristics as one of the sources of variation. And if HGT is as pervasive as the creationists here at UD would like to think, this simply sways the pendulum away from the modern theory back towards Darwin’s original theory. If that occurs, which I don’t think it will, then maybe classifying all evolutionary biologists as Darwinists may be an accurate description.

  18. 18
    TSErik says:

    A classic case of denialism.

    These poor souls are so entrenched in this ancient middle eastern cult their objectivity and ability to think criticality has been impaired. One only has to read their ridiculous articles, and many of their comments on UD, to see this first hand.

    Humbled, I corrected a couple of your typos. There is no need to thank me. I was happy to do it.

    Gotta love when they resort to this haughty derision (and one usually seen in places like reddit) required for them to maintain their false sense of superiority.

    Also, where in AB’s rambling does he address the actual point?

    With regard to Darwin, he is still recognized because he got it partially correct.

    So “Darwinism” and “Darwinian” are apt terms? Because he appeared to argue against that above.

    Even HGT, which UD flaunts as a falsification of Darwinian evolution, does no such thing because Darwin did not know about genetics. All he knew was that natural selection acts on the variation found in all populations.

    Where does this rambling fit in? Is he defending Darwin so as to take away some kind of negative connotation of “Darwinism”? Seems like a rambling strawman, really.

    And if HGT is as pervasive as the creationists here at UD would like to think, this simply sways the pendulum away from the modern theory back towards Darwin’s original theory. If that occurs, which I don’t think it will, then maybe classifying all evolutionary biologists as Darwinists may be an accurate description.

    LOL. What?

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    The reason why Darwinism is more properly thought of as belief system rather than a science is because Darwinism has no rigid mathematical falsification criteria so as to demarcate it from pseudo-science:

    “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)

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    And even if we loosen our constraints on mathematical falsifiability and use Lakatos’s more liberal criteria for falsification, we still find that Darwinism is a ‘degenerating programme’:

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) –
    “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
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosop.....cript.aspx

    A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009
    Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

    If you critically examine phylogenetics (tree of life resolutions), then you begin to see that it has many built-in methods and rescue-devices for saving it from ever being falsified. It does not “test” itself or provide any make-or-break statistical challenges. Whether it be incomplete lineage sorting or conveniently labeling a feature a homoplasy(convergent) there is practically always an ‘explanation’ for the data. It is a metaphysical statistics program, entirely based on the assumption that Common Descent *must* be true, with no rigorous criteria for falsifying that assumption.
    Which would not be so bad, except for at the same time, evolutionists turn around peddle the myth to the public that the very practice of phylogenetics would somehow break down if Common Descent were false. And in the mean-time they have all these impressive looking charts and graphs with animal pictures to put in textbooks and slideshows.
    per lifepsy

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....31061.html

    The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011
    Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52571.html

    Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence (again and again) – Cornelius Hunter – Nov. 18, 2012
    Excerpt: The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....e-for.html

    Data Peeking, an Indispensable Implement in the Darwinian Toolbox – Stephen A. Batzer
    – Nov. 19, 2012
    Excerpt: This is called “Data Peeking,” and it is also called “Bad Faith.” It works this way:
    1. Gather data and/or run an experiment.
    2. Determine the results.
    3. Think up an explanation (perhaps a just so story, or maybe a worthwhile explanation).
    4. Label your explanation a theory.
    5. Unveil the data in public, proclaiming, “Just as my theory predicts…”
    The key (to making this work) is the order of presentation. You offer the results to others after you run the experiments. When discussing, you give the just-so-story first, then the data, and then grandly proclaim that the results are just as you predicted.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66501.html

    Darwin’s Predictions With Cornelius Hunter
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_23-08_00

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter
    http://www.thepoachedegg.net/t.....-news.html

    How Evolutionists Stole the Histones – Cornelius Hunter – 12/12/12
    Excerpt: As usual, contradictory results are accommodated by patching the theory with yet more epicycles. The epicycles make the theory far more complex, and far more unlikely, if that were so possible. In this case, evolution not only struck on incredible complexity, and did so early in history (before there were eukaryotes and nucleus’s in which to pack the DNA), but the whole design now must have incorporated layers of redundancy which we haven’t even been able to figure out yet.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....tones.html

  21. 21
    Axel says:

    ….an ancient, middle-eastern cult, which became so mainstream and hegemonic that it gave rise to Western civilisation.

    Even now, heads of states across the globe go the Vatican for the ‘good oil’ on what’s cooking at the moment, in 180 countries.

    Go to the top of the class, Humphrey – but do not pass Go and do not collect £200.

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    Such almost routine use of clumsy language on your part, Humph, would invite ridicule among a less noble and compassionate crowd than our good selves.

  23. 23
    ppolish says:

    Wd400 says: “In science, Darwinian processes are those that are dominated by natural selection, and especially positive selection. It’s silly to subsume all of evolutionary biology under that term, but I don’t imagine anyone here will stop.”

    Is this “Darwin of the Gaps”? Darwin of the
    Beaks? Darwin of the Antibiotic Resistsnce? Gaps are shrinking yikes.

  24. 24
    wd400 says:

    Ppolish, I’ve no idea what you are trying to say, want to re-state it?

  25. 25
    ppolish says:

    “In science, Darwinian processes are those that are dominated by natural selection”

    Wd400, many Darwin Fundamentalists STILL believe that includes ALL of Nature. But over the years the “Darwin spoke a Book” crowd has shrunk.

    Now some argue that Origin of Species is not a modern science book and should not be interpreted as such.

    I’m just saying Darwinism is retreating into a smaller and smaller space. A place of beaks and antibiotic resistance.

  26. 26
    wd400 says:

    Wd400, many Darwin Fundamentalists STILL believe that includes ALL of Nature. But over the years the “Darwin spoke a Book” crowd has shrunk.

    … so it’s pretty silly to call evolutoinary biology “Darwinism”? I don’t know any evolutionary biologists who think all evolutionary processes are dominated by selection.

  27. 27
    ppolish says:

    Wd400, not all but some are dominated by selection? Do you have a rough cut idea of Natural Selections dominance? 90%? 50%?
    10%? How about 50 years ago? Dominance shrinking? Is that being taught??

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....cle/evo_25

  28. 28
    Andre says:

    Unbelievable

    “Darwin was partially right”. Well will you extend that to Lamarck and Wallace too? They are right and Darwin is wrong….. But you won’t because Lamarck and Wallace point to actual design, and that for the materialists will be conceding defeat, so they cling to the theory of a mad old coot that wrote a book to snub God because he lost his daughter.

    You guys have far more faith than me…..

  29. 29
    Acartia_bogart says:

    ppolish:

    Do you have a rough cut idea of Natural Selections dominance? 90%? 50%? 10%? How about 50 years ago? Dominance shrinking? Is that being taught??

    Well, my education in this subject was over thirty years ago and even back then we were taught that natural selection was not the only factor in evolution. So, I guess, the answer to your question is yes. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Leave a Reply