Intelligent Design Naturalism Origin Of Life

Real science vs pseudoscience—according to pop science

Spread the love

This paragraph has got to be the most absolute boilerplate published in a long time:

For most of us, it’s easy to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. Real science requires testing hypotheses, a rigorous analysis of the results, and peer review, after which the findings are either debunked, tweaked, or accept as fact. Pseudoscience dresses itself up in the clothes of science but doesn’t play by the same rules, particularly when it comes to abandoning ideas that fail to pass peer review.

Matt Davis, “https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/strangest-scientific-theories” at Big Think

To which we have a one-word response: multiverse. And peer review makes no difference when such evidence-free assertions are science.

Davis goes on to identify exploded science theories, for example:

4. The spontaneous generation of life Originally developed by Aristotle, the theory of spontaneous generation persisted only until Louis Pasteur disproved it in the mid-19th century. In essence, it declared that life could and regularly did form from non-living matter spontaneously. Aristotle, for instance, claimed that scallops were generated from sand. Others made the observation that maggots grew in dead flesh — nobody ever saw maggots travel to dead flesh, and it took a surprisingly long time for people to understand that maggots were laid there by other flies.

Matt Davis, “https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/strangest-scientific-theories” at Big Think

But stop, wait! The very doctrine of the natural origin of life from inanimate materials teaches precisely this. Is Davis saying that the one true doctrine of naturalism on the subject is wrong?

As a matter of fact, the belief in spontaneous generation is a very reasonable naturalist (nature is all there is, often called “materialism”) theory. It’s just probably not true, as Pasteur demonstrated. So where does that leave the smartass pop science tone that Davis adopts throughout?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

12 Replies to “Real science vs pseudoscience—according to pop science

  1. 1
    jstanley01 says:

    The smug jackasses I know (and I know at least one, lol) wake up every morning with one question foremost on their minds: How do I wend my way through the world this day with my jackassery intact? For some, pop science helps. YMMV.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    I tried to read the article at BigThink, but BigThink’s nicely self-explanatory donation banner popped up:

    Big Think!
    Help challenge common sense!

    Why would I want to do that?. We need to DEFEND common sense against the Big Thinkers who have been smashing common sense for 200 years.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to Pasteur and The Law of Biogenesis, i.e. life comes from life:

    “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.”
    (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75)

    Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation – June 21, 2015
    “Science brings men nearer to God.,,
    Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,,
    The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,,
    I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.”
    [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....eneration/

    Verses:

    Psalm 36:9
    For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light.

    John 1:4
    In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Acts 3:15
    You killed the Author of life, but God raised Him from the dead, and we are witnesses of the fact.

  4. 4
    goodusername says:

    But stop, wait! The very doctrine of the natural origin of life from inanimate materials teaches precisely this.

    No, it doesn’t. Darwinism says that humans, flies, bacteria, etc are all related in the evolutionary tree. Spontaneous generation says that life is continuously forming from non-life all around us, such as maggots “spontaneously” forming from dead flesh, and thus says that we aren’t related. In other words, it was a rival theory on the “origin of species.” Pasteur’s biggest champion (who helped make him a household name) was T. H. Huxley. He could equally have been called “Pasteur’s Bulldog”.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Goodusername, in a post entitled Real Science Vs Pseudoscience. I don’t think that it is such a bright idea for you to plug Darwin’s pseudo-scientific theory.

    Dobzhansky stated that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”

    “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”
    – Theodosius Dobzhansky, – 1973

    Yet biology itself could care less about Darwinian evolution.

    As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    Or as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Darwinian Evolution simply has nothing to do with the science of biology. Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs, yet in an article subtitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

    Again, the science of Biology itself owes nothing to Darwinian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution is simply a metaphysical belief, i.e. atheistic materialism, that is, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to in the preceding article, added onto, even forced onto, biological discoveries as a ‘narrative gloss’ after the discovery was made.

    In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with the science of Biology, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is not even on the correct theoretical, and/or metaphysical, foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video (27:15 minute mark, how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1634

    By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether something is scientific or not, Darwinism simply fails to qualify as a science.

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    The main reason that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science is that, although falsification is considered the gold standard to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, Darwinists themselves simply refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory:

    As Karl Popper stated, “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    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 grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    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.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    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 sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that 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).

    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.

    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.”

    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 the modern versions of it.”

    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’.

    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!

    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!.

    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.

    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!

    Darwinist’s, 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.

    On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    In short, Darwinian evolution is a shining example of a pseudoscience pretending to be a real science.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  6. 6
    goodusername says:

    Bornagain77,

    Nothing you wrote bears any relevance to anything I wrote.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    But alas GUN, you were trying to defend Darwin’s theory from the pseudoscience of spontaneous generation. I felt it my civic duty to inform you that Darwin’s theory is as much, if not more, of a pseudoscience than spontaneous generation is.

    Your welcome! 🙂

  8. 8
    AaronS1978 says:

    Good username

    The reference of spontaneous generation comes from the idea of ool which is also related to Darwinian
    Even though he was just trying to give an explanation for the diversity of life overtime the theory started extending itself Into ool

    Affectively life coming from in organic material and spontaneously coming into existence is really what’s happened If materialism and Darwinism go hand-in-hand

    But that’s the relation the diversity of life it’s not when anybody is arguing here right now it is over the origin of life science which does posit organic chemicals coming together in a little chemical go and then magically making life and then it just becomes semantics and what’s your definition of spontaneous

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    But the Darwins explanation of the diversity of life it’s not what anybody is arguing about right now, it is over the origin of life science which does posit organic chemicals coming together in a little chemical goo and then magically making life. then it just becomes semantics and what’s your definition of spontaneous

    I was using talk text on that last paragraph bad on me I hate how an all change it after you post it

  10. 10
    goodusername says:

    AaronS1978,

    Obviously with Darwinism life has to originate at some point (however that occurred, naturally or miraculously), but Darwinism proposes a “common descent of all life.” The article in the OP describes spontaneous generation as the idea “that life could and regularly did form from non-living matter” with the examples of scallops and maggots forming from non-life, unrelated to other life. News then states “The very doctrine of the natural origin of life from inanimate materials teaches precisely this.” Obviously that’s false. Further, spontaneous generation was a rival theory to Darwinism.

    Early Darwinists were among the most vocal opponents of spontaneous generation. Look up the 1870 BAAS Presidential Address of T. H. Huxley. The speech was traditionally for the President to give a broad overview of what was going on the fields of science at the time. One would think he’d mention Darwinism, particularly being that he’s “Darwin’s Bulldog”. But he doesn’t even mention Darwin or Darwinism. The whole speech was devoted to the single topic of attacking spontaneous generation and praising Pasteur.
    But by attacking spontaneous generation, he was tangentially defending Darwinism, because spontaneous generation is a threat to common descent.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    GUN, “can you be a little more explicit here?” as to exactly how you think Darwinism is less of a pseudoscience than spontaneous generation is?

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether something is scientific or not, Darwinism simply fails to qualify as a science.

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

  12. 12
    ET says:

    goodusername:

    Darwinism says that humans, flies, bacteria, etc are all related in the evolutionary tree.

    Via blind, mindless and purposeless processes. And that only holds if the OoL was via blind, mindless and purposeless processes.

Leave a Reply