Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Predictions Darwin followers admit have failed

Spread the love

If they’re honest.

Following on Darwin’s Predictions: A New Website Surveys Evolution’s Main Predictions

Here:

The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.

For example: Altruism

In Origins, Darwin did not examine the question of altruistic behavior in great detail. But he did explain that natural selection could not result in destructive behavior. After all, evolution is driven by reproductive differentials and “every single organic being may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers.”

But today we know of many examples of unambiguous altruism which are destructive to reproductive chances. It is not controversial that the evolutionary prediction Darwin issued has been falsified many times over. Indeed, a plethor
a of designs are “more injurious than beneficial” (Darwin, 162) to reproduction. They are found everywhere, from the mindless, single-cell bacteria to the many subtle behavior patterns of humans.

Consider those who choose to have few or no children. Such behavior is not uncommon, and it certainly harms one’s reproductive success. There are also many examples of altruism including giving blood and donating organs, giving to charities, helping the needy, and heroic wartime acts such as smothering a grenade or rescuing prisoners. Such acts of love and kindness falsify the evolutionary expectation that organisms should be oriented toward high levels of reproductive success.

Virtually everything any Darwin follower has said on this subject is garbage.

It is better explained by the fact that many Darwin followers do not believe that the mind really exists or that humans have free will.

Not that that bothers them a bit as long as they can legally force it down schoolkids’ throats and flounce around on airhead TV.

If you even support or view such edu/media systems, well … who’s really responsible, in the end?

Maybe we need to raise a fund to help retire Darwin profs, so we can have a serious discussion. Hey. We can even give their followers free bonus points for fast food?

The part that frustrates a traditional media hack like me is the failure to see that it doesn’t matter that Darwinism is mostly garbage if people support the systems that enable it.  

Government doesn’t give people intellectual freedom; they assume it. Or not.

See also: Increasing information in life forms is easy?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “Predictions Darwin followers admit have failed

  1. 1
    goodusername says:

    It is better explained by the fact that many Darwin followers do not believe that the mind really exists

    There’s nothing in the link about the existence of the mind.

    But today we know of many examples of unambiguous altruism which are destructive to reproductive chances. It is not controversial that the evolutionary prediction Darwin issued has been falsified many times over. Indeed, a plethora of designs are “more injurious than beneficial” (Darwin, 162) to reproduction.

    Just because a feature sometimes results in death, that doesn’t mean that overall that the feature is “more injurious than beneficial” for reproduction.

    Sometimes birds are killed by wind when flying. Or sometimes killed by predators when singing, due to giving away their position. But that doesn’t mean that if you clip a bird’s wings and remove its voice box that it will have a better chance at reproducing.

    Likewise, human social characteristics sometimes get us into trouble. But I don’t believe that overall that such features are “more injurious than beneficial” for reproduction.

    Here’s Darwin’s prediction, given more context:

    Natural selection will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct as myriads have become extinct.

Leave a Reply