Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Someone tries telling the truth: Darwin wasn’t that great but he met an elite need

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

Terry Scambray, friendly to design in nature, reviewed Paul Johnson’s Darwin: Portrait of a Genius , and received some interesting correspondence:

From Laszlo Bencze

As Terry Scambray makes clear in his review of Paul Johnson’s Darwin: Portrait of a Genius (May), Charles Darwin was hardly the scientific giant of present-day adulation. In fact, flattery of Darwin has reached its apogee now that he is often called the greatest scientist of all time, the man who had the “best idea” in the history of mankind.

Yet the truth, as Scambray points out, is that Darwin was very much a man of his time — and a dull plodder at that. He spent eight years writing a four-volume study of barnacles. Yet, oddly enough, barnacles are never mentioned in The Origin of Species. Why? Was it impossible to discern evolutionary evidence in these complex and obscure creatures he knew so well? Instead, he devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing. For such schoolboy ineptitude he was roundly criticized by his contemporaries, all of whom are now consigned to history’s dustbin, regardless of their skills and biological competency.

All true, but if the money shot is to claim that the mind is not real (so rationally perceived facts do not matter, but political power does), which is the big push today, then Darwin is the great liberator.

Then one of Darwin’s defenders pipes up:

Flogging Darwin with all the old accusations of plagiarism, intellectual dishonesty, blah, blah, blah, is an unproductive and tiresome exercise. By most contemporary accounts, Thomas Jefferson was not a terribly likeable man and was probably a profound hypocrite on racial matters, but that should not detract from his brilliance and the importance of his legacy. The interesting question is indeed a matter of legacies. As one of the pillars of modernism, Darwin’s concept of evolution by natural selection did indeed change the world — and that is what Terry Scambray is truly exercised about. …

It changed the world immeasurably for the worse, as anyone affected by eugenics or any kind of race theory has cause to know. And it stalks again in new glitzy Darwinian race theories reborn.

Scambray replies,

Laszlo Bencze’s and Arthur M. Shapiro’s letters are good examples of the way the Darwin debate proceeds — the first offers an informed critique of evolutionary theory; the second changes the subject, mentioning assorted extraneous matters while assuming that evolution is true.

Mr. Bencze, for his part, shows that Darwin, contrary to the uncritical devotion he enjoys, was merely a product of his time; in other words, paraphrasing Voltaire, “If Darwin didn’t exist, it would have been necessary for the 19th-century intelligentsia to have invented him” — so desperate were they for a completely materialistic explanation for life. Not to mention, as an inseparable part of this desire, the political necessity for progressives to discredit the ancien régime; in this case, the Tories and their hoary traditions thought to be synonymous with a discredited Christianity.

Intellectual historians, even the great Paul Johnson, appear to understand that Darwin was merely one among many who have tried to show how the world made itself. But for some reason, these historians can’t muster the will necessary to point out his abject failure to do so.

Either one wishes to be seen of men or to be seen in the eye of reality. Only the latter count.

See also: Reviewer [Terry Scambray]: Non-materialist atheist philosopher’s book“flawed but valuable”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
A-B lamented:
So I fail to see your analogy to slavery.
Exactly my point! Would you put your mother down if she had cancer and was paralyzed just because you had to spend thousands of dollars? - New World slaveholders considered their slaves as property, not people. - Many people in history considered (and still consider) Jews to be sub-human. They're called "offspring of apes and pigs" in many countries. - Ever read about Ota Benga, a Congolese Pygmy who was displayed at the Bronx zoo? - Both Native Americans and Australian Aborigines were hunted down and killed like game animals, because every Darwinian knew at that time that they were not evolved enough to be considered human. - A fetus is simply excess tissue that can be surgically removed. One of my college professors advocated post-natal abortion rights up to the age of two. Would you agree? - Animals can be owned, abused, experimented on, and put down at the whim of their owners. I'm sure none of the perpetrators would see the analogy either. My point is without an authoritative source (which is NOT your own uncritical opinion), you have no grounds to judge any of these practices. -Q Querius
Querius: "Did this cat choose the name “bogart” or did you impose a name of your own choosing? Have you ever had one of your cats “put down”?" No and yes, respectively. I gave him his name, but he has never answered to it. I have had an earlier cat put down because he had cancer and was paralyzed from the shoulders down, after spending thousands of dollars trying to make him feel comfortable. And in both cases, they were outdoor cats, free to come and go as they desired. So I fail to see your analogy to slavery. Acartia_bogart
Hmmm. A perfect example of self-justification by pet owners, "pet" coming from the act of coerced physical stroking of an animal. No, I've never "had" a cat, although I've participated in many interspecies friendships at a level of mutual equality and respect. Did this cat choose the name "bogart" or did you impose a name of your own choosing? Have you ever had one of your cats "put down"? You see, you're completely insensitive to this civil rights issue---just as the slaveholders of the past considered enslaved people as "property" to do with as they pleased. -Q Querius
Querius:
Don’t humans own slaves from other species? Don’t you own one of these slaves, a feline? How can you morally justify this?
You have obviously never had a cat if you think that we "own" them. Acartia_bogart
This weekend too marks the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I, the horror of mud and blood that shaped the past 100 years. Another anniversary we should mark. With tears. kairosfocus
Ann anniversary of civilisational importance. Let us all reflect. kairosfocus
kairosfocus @ 28 Thank you for giving such a well stated 'spot of balance' and for reminding all about this anniversary. Dionisio
kairosfocus,
Our civilisation is in deep trouble with basic rationality and responsiveness to evidence.
Exactly. Let's note the rising popularity of internet-based social media that operate on short text messages, many times frivolous and lacking deep meaning. Thinking does not seem popular these days. Sad reality. History shows sad examples of gross misinterpretation of the biblical precepts, or even ignorance of the message, by people claiming to be Christians. That is certainly misleading and thus damaging. The Christian Gospel leaves no doubt about the fact that in Christ two persons of different ethnic backgrounds are closer related than they are to their respective 'flesh' relatives. Only in Christ two former enemies can embrace in true peace. There's no lasting peaceful solution to the middle east conflict, or to any conflict, except through Christ. There's no real peace except the one offered to us by the Prince of Peace, the True Light that gives True Life. Rev. 22:21 Dionisio
And BTW, today is August 1st, a hallowed anniversary. Please don't taint it! kairosfocus
A_B: I think I should give a spot of balance. One of the things I notice with the snip and snipe tactics of village atheism [recently done 2.0 by so-called new atheism . . . ) is failure to address context and especially balance, while manifesting a rage driven sophomoric attitude that needs correcting. Let me begin with the man who personally fused the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, and as such became a pivotal -- but often unacknowledged -- founder of our civilisation. Paul often wrote chained to a soldier doubtless one ordered to report signs of sedition, and the like. Including harbouring escapees or provoking uprisings. Death penalty issues, of course. You need to temper your accusations with a dose or two of reality. Never forget how the Spartacus uprising ended, with thousands of crosses lining the road to Rome. Nor should you forget who was on the throne c. 54 - 68 AD: Nero, with Burrus and Seneca pushed aside c 59 AD. he it is who falsely accused the Christians of burning Rome July 18, 64 AD, in order to try to divert suspicion from himself; on grounds that the Christians were viewed with suspicion and contempt. That cluster of circumstances overturned the implications of Seneca's brother Gallio making a favourable decision that Christianity was a matter of uninteresting disputes among Jews, in Corinth c 51 AD, and Nero's madness ushered in ~ 250 years of bloody persecutions -- on the flimsiest of grounds. Context counts. (And FYI, getting closer to my own context, the history of Jamaica includes that the Dissenter/Evangelical missionaries were put on trial for their lives after the 1831 uprising, as triggers. The slaves testified that they understood the implications of the Gospel teachings on spiritual liberation for social liberation and equality so no they were not provoked to rebel by the Missionaries, who actually tried to counsel patience and reform. Not too surprising as the two main mottoes of the antislavery society come from Philemon 15 - 17 and 2: Am I not a man/woman and a brother/sister? When released, the missionaries sent a representative to England who spoke the suppressed truth, and when in May 1832 the Governor's report on burning of fifteen Dissenter Chapels reached [in the context of upheavals in Britain that put the Dissenters there in a pivotal position . . . ], the end was in sight as the British establishment was NOT about to go through the chaos of the conflicts associated with the Reformation era again. Delay tactics, as usual, were used in the face of the challenges led by Buxton, but on the night of July 31/Aug 1 1834, the slave population of Jamaica went to the Dissenter chapels to stand with those they knew had stood with them; precisely because of the teachings of the gospel. In Falmouth (Trelawny), Knibb -- standing at the pulpit -- counted down the seconds to midnight as "the monster" died. And though "gradualism" had put in an apprenticeship system, in four years its failure was evident and full free was passed.) I have already alluded to the verses that were almost verbatim the mottoes of the Antislavery movement. Let me now cite a pivotal text that is ever so often left off the table by those who would accuse:
1 Cor 7:17 Only let each person lead the life[c] that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant[d] when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants[e] of men. 24 So, brothers,[f] in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.
In other words, Paul is not calling for a radical overthrow, he is willing to let dynamics play out in across time reformation, laying out the principles and in the meanwhile refusing to counsel folly. But, he makes no doubt whatsoever as to his stand on liberty. And by injecting Christ into the matter, he established that liberty in Christ takes priority, and that the principles of Christ directly point to amelioration. Where also the point that a Christian ought not to be a slave implied that slavery was to be abolished as if one can be come a Christian he so also ought to be free. There is more, much more but this one should soak in, especially in light of Philemon, which is in effect a letter of instruction to manumit and charge the costs to the apostle; written with a chain to a Roman soldier and in the light of an escapee slave coming to Paul for refuge and int eh process becoming a convert -- and likely, a later Bishop of Ephesus of the same name Onesimus. A powerful example. Now, too, there is something implicit in attempts to distort the God of the OT into a Bronze Age moral monster, that should give pause. This is usually used by village atheists 2.0 to attack Evangelical Christians, whom they despise and imagine to be inevitably ignoramuses and potentially violent fanatics. The problem is, the OT texts are in fact substantially the same as the Hebrew Scriptures (though, for historical reasons differently organised). So, in a nutshell, unless you are willing to look a Rabbi in the eye, one whose parents or grandparents had Auschwitz tattoos on their forearms, and accuse him of the same things you would tax Christians who take the OT seriously, you are doing the moral equivalent of antisemitism and blood libel. A saner view is to understand that the OT scriptures were written for the benefit of in the first instance, escaped slaves from a major successful uprising, understood as Yahweh liberating from slavery, oppression and the stereotyping brand of aliens and fair game for any notion that took in the head of the king, including a genocide attempt. That is a key dynamic that pervades the whole and gives a very different picture to our understanding than many are wont to take up by snipping and sniping tactics. Yes, there are some regulations of slavery there, which we all will find troubling, as we will find similar regulations in a situation so alien to our own today. But those must be understood in the trajectory of the history in the text, and -- especially in dealing with Christians -- in light of the culmination manifested in Jesus and preached across the nations by his apostles. And that tendency is plain: there is a fundamental equality in men, women and children, across races, social classes and circumstances, which radically relativises distinctions, leading to the moral implications of the fundamental equality and quasi-infinite worth of the individual:
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith . . . . 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
The transformational principle of reformation rooted in fundamental equality and worth manifested in the love of God to each of us that opens the door of redemption, is plain. Save, to those whose vision is warped by hostility. Which points to the pivotal importance of the gospel, which in turn highlights the importance of understanding and responding appropriately to its authenticity, cf here on in context. You sought to play at atmosphere poisoning and at the oh it's all fundy religion in a cheap tuxedo tactics designed to denigrate the scientific substance of the design inference, but that opens the door to a counter-challenge on an even more important matter that we all need to address. And BTW, that smear is a lie, please do not further propagate it. The inference to design on FSCO/I is a straight up matter of inductive reasoning. But then, we have been seeing assaults on LOGIC and first principles of right reason, coming consistently (but not solely) from the hyperskeptics. Our civilisation is in deep trouble with basic rationality and responsiveness to evidence. KF kairosfocus
RE: #24 The laws governing Israel’s life should be interpreted in light of their cultural and social setting. They restrained exploitation and oppression in recognition of man’s “hardness of heart” While indentured slavery was accepted in the Old Testament, the clear implications of the Christian gospel led to its removal. The vast majority of such servants were slaves and were treated as property. To a large extent the economy of the ancient world depended on slavery. Like other New Testament writers, Peter does not condemn slavery, and slaves are commanded to obey their masters. Nevertheless, the New Testament requires that slaves be treated with respect, and masters are not to mistreat their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Furthermore, the spiritual equality of slave and free in the church community is strongly emphasized (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:11), and slaves are encouraged to seek their freedom by lawful means (1 Cor. 7:21–24). In the late 1700’s, when slavery came under attack, these teachings helped to undermine the institution of slavery.
1 Peter 2:13-25 (ESV) Submission to Authority Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Be subject . . . to every human institution. This introduces the theme of voluntary submission and obedience to those in authority developed in 1 Peter 2:13–3:6. for the Lord’s sake. A person should submit to ordinances because this will commend Christ to others and keep reproach from His name. Submission to others also in itself is a service to Christ (Col. 3:23, 24). the emperor as supreme. Chiefly the Roman emperor, at this time Nero (a.d. 54–68). The king is supreme, relative to governors and other rulers. Though Peter does not discuss the origin of kingly authority (cf. Rom. 13:1–7), Scripture teaches elsewhere that submission is required as long as it does not involve violation of the law of God (Matt. 22:21; Acts 4:19; 5:29). [Reformation Study Bible by Ligonier Ministries] Dionisio
AB speculated:
From a societal perspective. Humans, for whatever reason, evolved to be social animals. We also evolved a brain that allows us to reason. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that slavery is not a winning strategy in the long run.
It works for army ants. Didn't they evolve? Don't humans own slaves from other species? Don't you own one of these slaves, a feline? How can you morally justify this? -Q Querius
Acartia_bogart writes,
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. Leviticus 25:44-46. And this: When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. And this: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, Ephesians 6:5 And this: Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1 And this: Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. Titus 2:9-10
Bear in mind that by the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems. These didn’t always harmonize with godly principles or values. While some practices were condemned, others (like slavery) were tolerated by God. Regarding the social structure of the ancient nation of Israel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: “It was meant to function as a brotherhood in which, ideally, there were no poor [and there was] no exploitation of widows, waifs, or orphans.” Hence, more than simply allowing an already established social and economic structure, God’s Law regulated slavery so that, if practiced, slaves would be treated in a humane and loving manner. This can be seen from the scriptures you posted, particularly Colossians 4:1. Since you cited scriptures, I’ll do the same. Consider the following regulations in the Mosaic Law, provided to the Israelites: - If an Israelite found himself deeply in debt, he had the option to sell himself as a slave (Leviticus 25:47-52). - Hebrew slaves could be held for a maximum of 6 years. In the 7th year, they were set free. Nationwide, every 50 years, all slaves were set free (Leviticus 25:40,41). - A person found guilty of stealing could be sold as a slave to pay off his debt (Exodus 22:3). When his debt was fully paid, he was set free. - Cruel and oppressive treatment of slaves was not allowed. A slave killed by his master was to be avenged, and if he was severely maimed (losing an eye, for example), he was set free (Exodus 21:26, 27). - Slaves were set free and given donations to help aid them start their new lives (Deuteronomy 15:13,14) Barb
Leodp:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him will not perish but receive eternal life” John 3:16
This does not suggest that slavery is bad. It just says that everyone who believes in him will have life after death.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28
Again, this did not say that slavery is bad. It just says that nationality and station in life are immaterial if you believe.
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;” Romans 10:12
Same thing. But then ther is this:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. Leviticus 25:44-46.
And this:
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
And this:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, Ephesians 6:5
And this:
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1
And this:
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. Titus 2:9-10
Acartia_bogart
leodp @ 22
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but receive eternal life” John 3:16 The “world” is all people regardless of skin, culture or ethnicity. Our Creator (who needs nothing) values us all enough to take on a human body and suffer abuse and painful death at our hands in order to redeem us back to Himself. Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 And, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;” Romans 10:12 In this equality there is no room for one person dominating another. There is no room for one enslaving another. In fact we’re told to serve one another in humility and love. “let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost” Revelation 22:17 The only distinction between humans now is between those willing to drink the life freely offered, and those who are not.
Well stated. Direct quotes from the scriptures that completely answer the posed questions. Thank you. The same One who humbly washed the feet of His disciples, whom He had created, asked us (insignificant mortal sinners) to imitate Him and do the same to others. If He who created everything, lowered Himself to that level, who are we to make distinctions between races or ethnicities? C. S. Lewis said that there are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' But not all can see that so clearly. Mysteriously you leodp can see it, but praise God for revealing it to you. Without His grace, you could not have written what you wrote. Such knowledge does not come from any kind of worldly education or intelligence. True wisdom only comes from God. Rejoice and sing hallelujah! Rev 22:21 Dionisio
Acartia_bogart: "From a societal perspective. Humans, for whatever reason, evolved to be social animals. We also evolved a brain that allows us to reason. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that slavery is not a winning strategy in the long run." For the slave owner it's a winning strategy, and why should he care about the long-run if it that means after the end of his own existence? "For whatever reason..." is not a compelling or binding moral basis to say slavery is wrong. (Or to say anything is morally wrong against a transcendent standard). Whether or not something is, "Mistaken" it is not the same thing as morally wrong. To say it is "instinctual" or "counter-instinctual" also fails because humans, above all, are the least bound to instinct, and most capable of repressing and willfully acting contrary to it. As products of chance, selected for the ability to reproduce in greater numbers in an impersonal, mechanistic universe I could better argue as Nietzsche that Christianity, with it's notions of compassion, forgiveness, love and mercy, only impedes evolutionary progress. Helping the needy, infirm or weaker. Evolution is furthered by the selective elimination of the weaker. Better, a 'Will to Power'. Acartia_bogart: "I challenge you to point me to any verse in the bible, or other religious texts, that state that slavery is wrong. So please don’t tell me that, without religion, we would still have slavery." "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him will not perish but receive eternal life" John 3:16 The "world" is all people regardless of skin, culture or ethnicity. Our Creator (who needs nothing) values us all enough to take on a human body and suffer abuse and painful death at our hands in order to redeem us back to himself. Therefore, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 And, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;" Romans 10:12 In this equality there is no room for one person dominating another. There is no room for one enslaving another. In fact we're told to serve one another in humility and love. "let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost" Revelation 22:17 The only distinction between humans now is between those willing to drink the life freely offered, and those who are not. ---- In a Darwinian scheme however, progress is achieved by one 'race' ascending over another. Darwin's claims went down well with the aristocrats, racists and slave owners of his time. Darwin himself considered black Africans inferior and a step down on the evolutionary ladder. The 'Preservation of Favored Races' after all... As a Christian I find the whole notion of superior and inferior races both false and repugnant. There is one race: human. There is one God and Creator of all. And he makes no class distinctions among humans. That's where Jefferson and Adams and the others got the notion that, "All men are created equal..." in both worth and rights. leodp
Is this the same constitution that stated that a black man was worth less that a white man?
LoL! Obviously not. Mung
Acartia_bogart:
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that slavery is not a winning strategy in the long run.
Nonsense. Mung
Leopd: "From a Darwinian perspective, tell me how you’d argue against slavery? Or, in favor of the equality of all races." From a societal perspective. Humans, for whatever reason, evolved to be social animals. We also evolved a brain that allows us to reason. It doesn't take a genius to realize that slavery is not a winning strategy in the long run. In fact, I challenge you to point me to any verse in the bible, or other religious texts, that state that slavery is wrong. So please don't tell me that, without religion, we would still have slavery. Acartia_bogart
Acartia_bogart: "Is this the same constitution that stated that a black man was worth less that a white man? That approved of slavery?" My quote was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. However, the Constitution grew from the principles stated there. In the concessions made to the southern states to get their united help in fighting off the most powerful army in the world, they also set themselves on a collision course with their own stated premises (and several knew it and spoke of it). Later 300,000 white soldiers gave their lives to rid the country of this contradiction; and the objective moral wrong of slavery. You might read-up on William Wilberforce, who from an explicitly Christian Theistic view, fought and won the battle to end slave trade in the British Empire: a first in human history. Till then slavery had been the norm throughout human history, and not just in the British Empire. From a Darwinian perspective, tell me how you'd argue against slavery? Or, in favor of the equality of all races. After that, please tell me how you'd argue for the universally endowed and binding human rights that transcend the authority of any government or king. leodp
JLAfan2001, as the article from Wells, at 10 which I listed, clearly shows, Darwinists flip empirical priority around in science and allow their philosophical bias dictate how they will interpret the evidence instead of letting the evidence potentially falsify their philosophical bias. ,,, The 8.2% study is laughable. They readily admit that functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional in their scheme of things, only 'conservation of sequence' determines what is functional in their scheme!:
DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds - July 24, 2014 Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution -- a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724141608.htm
So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true from the outset will Darwinists accept that a given sequence of 'junk' DNA may be functional! This is called a circular argument, or 'assuming your conclusion' in your premise, and is a horrible, even a fraudulent, way to practice science! Moreover, two other studies recently came out, at about the same time as this severely biased 8.2% study, studies that have drastically different conclusions on the supposed junk DNA myth of Darwinists:
Junk DNA not as worthless as once thought - July 24, 2014 Excerpt: As early as 2007,, Hackermüller, together with a number of colleagues, was able to demonstrate,, practically the entire genome (is transcribed into RNA—a template which normally serves the production of proteins), even those areas which are completely neglected when looking at blueprints for proteins. Hackermüller: "This finding gave rise to a lively discussion as to whether this could be caused by chance events or mistakes in the regulation of cellular processes. However, I doubt that nature is so wasteful with resources that it would produce such masses of RNA for no specific reason.” In their latest study,, Hackermüller and his team,, were able to bridge yet another knowledge gap. The transcription of non-coding regions in the genome is precisely regulated by cellular signaling pathways—and on a grand scale: up to 80% of the RNA copies were non-coding. "We did not expect such a magnitude," says Hackermüller. "This is not indicative of a chance product—it is highly likely that the non-coding RNAs perform a similarly important functions to that of protein-coding RNA." http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/07/junk-dna-not-worthless-once-thought?et_cid=4064233&et_rid=653535995&location=top Illuminating the dark side of the genome - July 29, 2014 Excerpt: "Almost 50 percent of our genome is made up of highly repetitive DNA, which makes it very difficult to be analysed. In fact, repeats are discarded in most genome-wide studies and thus, insights into this part of the genome remained limited. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics (MPI-IE) in Freiburg now succeeded in examining this dark side of the genome. Their analyses revealed that repeat-associated heterochromatin is essential to repress retrotransposons and thereby protects the genomic integrity of stem cells. This work opens the way for future genome-wide analyses of repetitive regions in the genome and is in line with newly emerging functions for heterochromatin." http://phys.org/news/2014-07-illuminating-dark-side-genome.html
Moreover, despite what atheistic Darwinists would prefer to believe beforehand, it is simply insane to presuppose that the DNA will be mostly junk. The multiple levels of functionality discerned, thus far, in and around DNA is simply far, far, beyond anything man has yet encountered. up to and especially including far surpassing any machine man has yet designed:
Demonstrating, Once Again, the Fantastic Information-Storage Capacity of DNA – January 29, 2013 Excerpt: Gigabytes have become commonplace, and now we’re warming up to terabytes. Ready for petabytes? That’s a thousand terabytes and a million gigabytes. It’s the new lingo that will migrate from geek to street, if DNA hard drives become a reality.,,, Last year, researchers led by bioengineers Sriram Kosuri and George Church of Harvard Medical School reported that they stored a copy of one of Church’s books in DNA, among other things, at a density of about 700 terabits per gram, more than six orders of magnitude more dense than conventional data storage on a computer hard disk. Now, researchers led by molecular biologists Nick Goldman and Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) in Hinxton, UK, report online today in Nature that they’ve improved the DNA encoding scheme to raise that storage density to a staggering 2.2 petabytes per gram, three times the previous effort.,,, This is truly a profound achievement of human intelligent design. Why wouldn’t the same be true of natural DNA? ,,, There’s far more information in our DNA than the UK team embedded in theirs — layers and layers of coding that regulate gene expression and respond interactively to signals in a vast network of complex feedback loops. It’s a whole system of information. To clinch the comparison, natural DNA also has elaborate error correction, proofreading and repair systems that can copy all that information with extremely high fidelity. As the Shakespearean sonnets in DNA point to intelligent design, the functional information in natural DNA points to intelligent design. It would be foolish to ascribe the superior information to blind, unguided processes. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/how_do_you_peta068641.html etc.. etc..
bornagain77
Leopd: "I’ve been wondering — What if America’s founders had been Darwinists rather than Christians? How would they have framed the foundational logic of the American revolution? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”" Is this the same constitution that stated that a black man was worth less that a white man? That approved of slavery? Acartia_bogart
"It changed the world immeasurably for the worse, as anyone affected by eugenics or any kind of race theory has cause to know." Yes, the world was such a racially tolerant place before Darwin. Almost every scientific discovery has been misused. Why would you expect natural selection to be any different? Acartia_bogart
BA77 When are you guys going to finally admit that ENCODE's findings about junk DNA were wrong? Even they have back tracked and admitted that they were too hasty in their assestment. Wells and the DI lost this battle. Stop claiming it as a victory. JLAfan2001
Most of his ardent fans probably haven't waded thorough it themselves. After all, evolution is fact. Why study it's founding opus? Mung
Reminds me of my comments on UD some time ago regarding Darwin's magnum opus:
Probably because there is so very little actual science in The Origin . . . As one of the relatively small number of folks who have actually waded through The Origin cover to cover, I will say that I was hugely disappointed. At the time, notwithstanding Darwin’s polished writing style, I concluded it was one of the worst books I had ever read, possibly the worst. Thinking about it later, I have come to understand that the reason I found it so wanting is that I had approached The Origin looking for a scientific case supporting evolution. Instead, what I was treated to were speculations, ruminations, complaints about how God would not have done it this way, etc. Now I have come to appreciate Darwin as a skilled rhetorician — able to weave a small collection of mostly-superficial observations into what is largely a philosophical and religious argument about how God wouldn’t have done it. Doesn’t satisfy the scientific curiosity, but hugely successful as a rhetorical tool.
and, on another occasion:
Look, Darwin was a skilled rhetorician. After I initially finished reading The Origin cover-to-cover my first impression was that it was the worst book I had ever read. Later I came to realize that was due to my expectations going in: Given how his theories had been heralded as a keystone of modern biology, a foundation of science, I went in expecting he was actually going to provide some solid science and some key understandings and insights. My bad. I’ve since come to appreciate that The Origin was a long argument about various minor observations, coupled with what-if stories, and sprinkled with “God wouldn’t have done it that way.” Not what we might have been looking for as a scientific work, but an exceedingly effective rhetorical tool — the power of which continues to this day among his ardent fans.
Eric Anderson
Looked at another way: Natural Selection is so efficient that it leaves only a purified DNA code, with little or no junk (forget about what we said before). Evolutionary theory is so flexible that it cannot be falsified... or so brilliant that it predicts any possible finding. "We have a consensus, and it must not be disturbed" (Dr Atheist). FWIW, 7 year old corn: http://vimeo.com/user3904018/dratheist leodp
of related interest, if a sixth grader can spot your philosophical bias, but you can't, perhaps its time for you to examine your philosophical assumptions? Junk DNA: Darwinists Say They Are "Largely Free from Assumptions or Hypotheses" - Jonathan Wells - July 30, 2014 According to a recent Science Daily news item, Oxford University researchers say that only 8.2% of our DNA is likely to be functional. The rest is "junk." The 8.2% figure contradicts the conclusions of the ENCODE Project (for "Encyclopedia of DNA Elements"), which was established after the Human Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA. In September 2012, the results from over a thousand experiments -- involving dozens of laboratories and hundreds of scientists on three continents, published almost simultaneously in dozens of articles in five different journals -- provided evidence that 80% or more of our DNA is functional. The results were consistent with The Myth of Junk DNA, which I published in 2011. But the ENCODE research had been going on for about five years. Why were the articles published almost simultaneously? Perhaps because the authors wanted to present a united front against the reaction they anticipated from "junk DNA" advocates. And what a reaction they got! Darwinists Larry Moran, Nick Matzke, and P.Z. Myers (among others) lit up the blogosphere with their denunciations. Near the heart of the controversy is the definition of "function." The ENCODE researchers defined function biochemically: A DNA segment is functional if it "participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type." The Darwinists define function in terms of evolutionary theory: A DNA segment is functional if it is subject to natural selection. The Oxford researchers took the evolutionary approach. To determine what percentage of human DNA is subject to selection, they compared published sequences from humans, mice, rats, cattle, dogs, horses, guinea pigs, rabbits, bushbabies, pandas and rhinos. One of the researchers, Gerton Lunter, explained: "Throughout the evolution of these species from their common ancestors, mutations arise in the DNA and natural selection counteracts these changes to keep useful DNA sequences intact." The researchers looked for places in the DNA where insertions and deletions were far apart, reasoning that the intervening DNA sequence was constrained by purifying selection because it was biologically functional. They found that about 8.2% of our DNA is constrained in this way, and thus likely to be functional (though less than 2% of our DNA is protein-coding). They concluded that DNA that differed substantially among the species they studied -- DNA that was non-conserved -- had not been subject to purifying selection and was thus non-functional. But while sequence conservation may imply function, non-conservation does not imply non-function -- as biologists have long recognized. Indeed, to whatever extent DNA differences play a role in distinguishing different species, non-conserved sequences must be functional. Furthermore, biologists now know that as much as 30% of the protein-coding DNA in every organism consists of "orphan genes" that bear little or no similarity to DNA sequences in other organisms. While the functions of most orphan proteins are not yet known, few people would be so foolhardy as to suggest that they are non-functional. Yet in a search for evolutionary constraint such as the Oxford researchers used, these protein-coding regions would be judged non-functional. Why do Darwinists find evolutionary speculation more reliable than biochemical experimentation? A clue might be found in a presentation given by Dan Graur at the 2013 meeting of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution in Chicago. As Graur -- a vocal, even nasty, opponent of ENCODE -- reasoned in his presentation: "If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong." So while the definition of "function" is close to the heart of the controversy, adherence to Darwinian evolution is even closer. And it seems that adherence to Darwinism has a way of blinding people to the assumptions they make. Perhaps this is why Gerton Lunter, quoted above about the role of evolutionary theory in the Oxford study, told Science Daily that "our approach is largely free from assumptions or hypotheses." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/junk_dna_darwin088361.html bornagain77
Of related interest to lack of scientific rigor in neo-Darwinism: Video: Stephen Meyer on How Charles Marshall, in Defending Darwinism, Was Forced to Violate a Key Scientific Tenet http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/stephen_meyer_o_2088341.html Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8Mhn2EKvQ bornagain77
Thanks leodp, I don't know how well said it was, but I'm glad that, in spite of me and my mistakes in grammar and punctuation, you found it useful. bornagain77
Bornagain:Thanks for your well said and reasoned, information-rich posts. leodp
I've been wondering -- What if America's founders had been Darwinists rather than Christians? How would they have framed the foundational logic of the American revolution? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." From a Darwinian perspective, how could this claim have been framed? How would have King George III have replied, from a Darwinian perspective? Or was his actual response a more Darwinian than Christian move? A 'might makes right' sort of thing. Perhaps: "Evolution progresses by the ascendance of the superior over the inferior. The aristocracy is the naturally selected expression of that rule, and to interfere with it would be to interfere with the creative powers of nature." This would seem like a relevant question when talking about the worth of the contributions of Charles Darwin. leodp
Darwin used to be my hero, but I've evolved since then. Mung
Here is what a Darwinist termed a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional):
ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl
And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain even a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathways.
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
The reason why ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:
Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
I personally hold that the reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinian evolution has consistently failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is bursting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis:
John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. A.C. McINTOSH - Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Dr. MacIntosh's prediction for information, transcendent of matter and energy, to be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium has been born out empirically. It is now found that Quantum entanglement/information 'holds' DNA (and proteins) together
Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral – February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf etc.. etc..
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ROYAL TAILOR - HOLD ME TOGETHER - YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw
bornagain77
What should be needless to say, having ‘cell-mediated processes’ direct changes to DNA is in direct contradiction to the ‘undirected randomness’ which is held to be foundational to neo-Darwinian thought. Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that neo-Darwinists have attributed to it. First off, to the extent that Natural Selection does do anything, Natural Selection is found to be a eliminative force not a generative force:
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
As well, Natural Selection is grossly inadequate to do the work required of it because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,,
Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933
Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population.
“Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations” - John Sanford - September 6, 2013 Excerpt of concluding comments: Our findings raise a very interesting theoretical problem — in a large genome, how do the millions of low-impact (yet functional) nucleotides arise? It is universally agreed that selection works very well for high-impact mutations. However, unless some new and as yet undiscovered process is operating in nature, there should be selection breakdown for the great majority of mutations that have small impact on fitness.,,, We show that selection breakdown is not just a simple function of population size, but is seriously impacted by other factors, especially selection interference. We are convinced that our formulation and methodology (i.e., genetic accounting) provide the most biologically-realistic analysis of selection breakdown to date. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011
Here are a few more notes on this insurmountable ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection:
Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565 The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf
Moreover, as if that were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in organisms, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is not even be on the right playing field in the first place:
The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
bornagain77
Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that Darwinian evolution does not have a demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also consistently shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and the math of Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html
Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are both now shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have ascribed to them.
The Edge of Evolution: Why Darwin's Mechanism Is Self-Limiting - Michael Behe - July 18, 2014 (Part 3 of 3) Excerpt: As science probes ever deeper into the molecular details of life,, grave obstacles to undirected evolution have become manifest. Relatively recent, terrific research using the powerful techniques available to modern biology shows three general, separate barriers to a Darwinian (or, for that matter, to any undirected) evolutionary mechanism. (1. random mutation, 2. natural selection, 3. irreducible complexity),,, It's important to notice that these three roadblocks are substantially independent of each other. Sequestration of a system to its current function by natural selection is a different problem from the damage done by adaptive-yet-degradative random mutations, both of which are conceptually distinct from the need for multiple, unselected steps to reach some adaptive states. A result of their independence is that they will work synergistically. Undirected evolutionary change faces multiple overpowering restraints.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/the_edge_of_evo087971.html
,,, in regards to 'random' mutations, although Darwinian evolution appeals to 'unguided' random mutations/variations to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any unguided “random” changes happening to DNA in the first place:
The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011 Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.” http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf
Moreover, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided random changes from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that:
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Random Mutation: “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.” - per Huffington Post
bornagain77
As Darwin of his day was criticized as being scientifically inept,,
Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”. When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012 Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,, And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,, For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html
Here is the letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin:
Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin - 24 Nov 1859 Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548
Since Darwin's book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning whilst the conservative 'scientific' clergy were not:
“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species
,, Moreover, to this day Darwin's defenders are to be regarded as scientifically inept,,, Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science - Part II
Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Excerpt: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,,,,” - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
What the vast majority of Darwinists fail to realize (or ever honestly admit to) is that Darwinian evolution is not even a 'real' physical science in any proper sense but that Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science. Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:
“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
“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 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. - per Edge 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/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet per John Sanford
bornagain77

Leave a Reply