Despite everything, some still carry on about “denialism”

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 24, 2020

Culture, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Hard on the heels of the news that a Harvard astronomer still thinks that long-vanished space rock Oumuamua is “alien tech,” we see—direct from Boilerplate Central—a screed by a Harvard science historian at Scientific American about “denialism.” She has a theory:

Those who argue that COVID-19 isn’t a real threat are mirroring bogus attacks on global warming and evolution…
Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don’t like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.
Climate change: I reject the suggestion that the “magic of the market” has failed and that we need government intervention to remedy the market failure. Evolutionary theory: I am offended by the suggestion that life is random and meaningless and that there is no God. COVID-19: I resent staying home, losing income or being told by the government what do to.
Naomi Oreskes, “The False Logic behind Science Denial” at Scientific American (August 1, 2020)

Actually large numbers of people have seen that, whatever may be happening with the climate, evolution, or COVID-19, much that has been shouted at us from the lectern is a legitimate source of grave doubt.

We don’t need a new syllogism to explain the resulting reaction from much of the public. It is called loss of faith. It happens when a creed does not provide a basis for reasonable belief.

Comments

Truthfreedom: You can only reach God by logic and faith. First causes (= logic of why the Universe exists) and Divine Revelation (we being limited creatures could never understand God’s nature by our own). . . . . The scientific tool to investigate God is your immaterial intellect (rational soul). Your moral government is not “an illusion foisted upon you by evolution”. Evolutive processes can explain only your physical substrate. If two different people apply their intellect and logic to investigate the existence of God and come to two different conclusions then how do you know who is right? Or, another example, if one person's faith and intellect tell them that God is the Christian one and another person's faith and intellect tell them that God is the Zoroastrian one who is right? I suspect you'll say that because we have logic and intellect that proves the existence of God but how is that not a circular argument? JVL

31 JVL
But how do you know such a being is even possible let alone exists?
You can only reach God by logic and faith. First causes (= logic of why the Universe exists) and Divine Revelation (we being limited creatures could never understand God's nature by our own).
Scientifically I mean
That's the big problem with modern thought. The moderns have been equating science ("knowledge") to applied/ repeatable experimentation (which is only a subset of the latter, born thanks to the intellectual work of many many men who laid the foundations of our civilization). God is Immaterial. You are never going to measure it using instruments that can only reach physical parameters. The scientific tool to investigate God is your immaterial intellect (rational soul). Your moral government is not "an illusion foisted upon you by evolution". Evolutive processes can explain only your physical substrate. That we can measure matter to its most intimate components is one thing. That we can infer from that fact that ONLY what is extended in space exists , that's another very different one. The West needs a philosophical re-do. Materialism is a failed worldview (with consequences). Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

. Seversky, do you think the practice of seeking and contemplating physical evidence — specifically not ignoring it — is a practice followed for good reason? Chief among those reasons is the hope that we might not walk around our lives with false conceptions about the nature of things, isn’t that right? The general idea being that, at least among those questions where we might know something with a good degree of confidence, our conceptualizations that are supported by physical evidence will rise to the top and those that aren’t supported might eventually fall away into the dustbin of history. Isn’t that the hope? Isn’t this the payoff for men and women having the discipline to reason in a certain methodical way? I think you avoid the questions posed in #26 and #28 for the same reasons you so quickly retreat to your “no one knows how life began” maneuver. It’s a little like Charles Darwin’s amorphous prebiotic goo; how much easier is it to believe that life could begin from nothing if one can just picture it as a featureless globule of pus, propelled through time by the awesome creative powers of open-ended evolution. The problem, of course, is that Darwinian evolution cannot exist without significant organizational requirements already in place. In his time, Charles Darwin had no way of knowing what his name-sake theory actually entailed, but you are not living in Darwin’s time. Today, we know exactly what type of organization is required for Darwinian evolution. However, you want to endlessly dismiss and ignore that knowledge because it represents an insurmountable threat to your personal beliefs. If modern science demonstrates that an irreducible system of self-reference is fundamental to the origin of life and evolution — a complex and simultaneous coherence between multiple symbols, constraints, and law — then you quickly retreat to Darwin’s pus-in-a-pond and the safety of its Victorian ignorance. You want to hold that ignorance above modern science on the Origin of Life, eliminating a well-documented threat posed by 160 years of progress. And to be certain, this is not something you privately hold for yourself. On the contrary, in front of incontrovertible physical evidence, you have been on this forum publicly promoting this ignorance for the past twelve years. In demanding that your own worldview needs be met in place of the free practice of science and reason, you are effectively telling the world “Let us ignore this until I’m dead”. But the origin of life does not include a featureless globule of pus, Seversky. That kind of appeal for intellectual blindness — a truly shameless request — quickly puts all your posturing about the value of scientific knowledge into perspective, does it not? Upright BiPed

That would be the evidence, JVL. Start with our existence. Then factor in all that is required for that to be allowed. Understand that without intelligent design all you have is sheer dumb luck to explain it. Add to that the fact that science can only allow for so much luck (Dawkins). So the evidence for ID is wide- from physics, chemistry, biology and geology, to astronomy and cosmology. But even that doesn't get you a supernatural deity. EugeneS was talking about in the scenario that the Designer is God. We would get to that by following the evidence ET

EugeneS: In the supernaturalistic (monotheistic) view, it is resolved by positing the existence of an omnipotent Creator as the origin of all causal relationships. But how do you know such a being is even possible let alone exists? Scientifically I mean (not wanting to step on anyone's personal experience). JVL

Seversky ==Who designed the Designer and the Designer’s Designer and the Designer’s Designer’s Designer and so on ad infinitum== You are apparently not aware of the fact that infinite regress is a problem in the naturalistic view. In the supernaturalistic (monotheistic) view, it is resolved by positing the existence of an omnipotent Creator as the origin of all causal relationships. Naturalism is the one that suffers from infinite regress, not theism. In naturalism, there is no stopping me asking: "and how did that come about?" ad infinitum. In the above, you are just applying naturalism where it does not apply, and voila you think you demonstrate a contradiction! But the problem is not with supernaturalism, the problem is with your view. So it is exactly the opposite of what you think is true. EugeneS

. Seversky, do you acknowledge science and history, or do you continue to deny it? Why do you avoid answering the question in #26 and #28 above? Upright BiPed

.
Seversky: I haven’t dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data. UB: So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must use the laws of nature to cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various constituents of the dissipative process (i.e. changing the arrangement of one segment, changes the product of all the other segments). These requirements aren’t merely a mouthful, they are an accurate (and heavily abbreviated) summary of what physics and biology have taught us through logic, prediction, and confirmation via experimental result. When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts. Seversky: The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them. UB: The elements of this description [above] are carefully recorded in the physics and biology literature, and are based on prediction, logic, measurement, and experimental confirmation. None of the material observations involved here is even controversial. Additionally, the logic is both appropriately sparse and impeccable. You’ll also notice that this is about measurement and description, not about denying or supporting any proposed solution to the origin of the system. Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?
No attempt to answer this question Sev? Upright BiPed

LOL! kairosfocus

.
Sev: The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them.
Here is the part of my post that was left unaddressed by your remarks:
So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must (using the law of nature) cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various individual constituents in the dissipative process.
The elements of this description are carefully recorded in the physics and biology literature, and are based on prediction, logic, measurement, and experimental confirmation. None of the material observations involved here is even controversial. Additionally, the logic is both appropriately sparse and impeccable. You’ll also notice that this is about measurement and description, not about denying or supporting any proposed solution to the origin of the system. Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements? Upright BiPed

seversky:
The fact is that no one does know how life began.
The fact is we have eliminated blind and mindless processes. If nothing else the Hitchen's Gambit applies: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
You cannot conceive of how life on Earth could possibly have come about except through intelligent agency ...
The Hitchen's Gambit is still in play.
Who designed the Designer and the Designer’s Designer and the Designer’s Designer’s Designer and so on ad infinitum
The people pushing that agenda are scientifically illiterate infants. In the meantime scientists will be studying the design as such so they can understand it. ET

Upright BiPed @ 21
When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts.
The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them. Nor am I denying the science. What I am denying is the inference you are making which is essentially the argument from incredulity. You cannot conceive of how life on Earth could possibly have come about except through intelligent agency and I have never denied that such is a possibility. Finding that life on Earth was the product of some alien intelligence would undoubtedly be one of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history. But it wouldn't solve the problem of the origin of life itself. If the only way to account for the complexity of the life we observe around us on Earth is to posit a super intelligent alien designing agency that must be more complex than what it then we would have to ask what even more complex and intelligent designing agency could account for the intelligence that designed life on Earth. Who designed the Designer and the Designer's Designer and the Designer's Designer's Designer and so on ad infinitum
Semantic closure isn’t an unwarranted inference, Sev. Shall we dig up Turing and Von Neumann and ask them if their machines required the mediums to be coordinated with the constraints?
If you do, ask them if they believe their work points inevitably towards an Intelligent Designer and where the Designer got all its information. Seversky

Bornagain77,
Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
Seversky replied
Which also means there is no demarcation criterion by which the theory of evolution can be determined to be unscientific.
If it can NOT be described as "scientific" --- then it does not form part of the "scientific field". It is then un-scientific (per definition). Truthfreedom

Seversky
They were philosophers of science not practicing biologists. They were critiquing a theory outside their field of expertise.
?? Philosophers of science DO practice philosophy of science. Biology ('evolution') = science Philosophy of biology = philosophy of science. How could they (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn) be "critiquing a theory outside of their own expertise"? Truthfreedom

.
I haven’t dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data.
Sure you do Sev. But I’m happy to play along. So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple complex objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must use the laws of nature to cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various constituents of the dissipative process (i.e. changing the arrangement of one segment, changes the product of all the other segments). These requirements aren’t merely a mouthful, they are an accurate (and heavily abbreviated) summary of what physics and biology have taught us through logic, prediction, and confirmation via experimental result. When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts. Don’t tell me you don’t dismiss science and history Seversky, you are being wildly dishonest – a fact that can be demonstrated through the recorded text of this blog over the past decade you’ve been here. You want to wave away these physical and organizational facts, and forever stipulate that there is a much simpler unknown and un-named thing that was the origin of biology. Not only is that belief non-falsifiable (and therefore non-scientific) it does not change the integrated physical requirements of the gene system. The vertical face you have to climb remains.
What I dispute is that the inferences some draw from them are compelling or even warranted.
surprise, surprise. Semantic closure isn’t an unwarranted inference, Sev. Shall we dig up Turing and Von Neumann and ask them if their machines required the mediums to be coordinated with the constraints? Upright BiPed

Nicely pointed out, ET. One problem with appeals to authority is that, just like linear extrapolation, eventually they go wrong. Otherwise, science would never experience any progress. This was exactly how Artistotle's ideas strangled science for such a long time, brilliant though he was. Same with Darwin's obsolete ideas. Another problem is that these appeals are exaggerated. For example
Yet the vast majority of professional biologists, who have spent decades studying and practicing their discipline, are persuaded that the available evidence does support the theory of evolution
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of biologists do not study evolution. They work in many specialized field within biology and simply assume that their widely publicized colleagues are engaged in as much rigor as they are, and not in promoting speculative "science fantasy." Reading Marshall's Evolution 2.0, made it very clear to me that random mutation is probably the least effective of five or six agents of genomic change in response to the to the environment. -Q Querius

Seversky
Neither of us are scientists or philosophers of science so our opinions carry very little weight compared with those of the professionals who have spent decades studying and practicing their disciplines full-time.
A few paragraphs later, this genius goes on dismissing Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos, two "professionals who have spent decades studying and practicing their disciplines full-time." This is Seversky's logic. A person who says he is a biological automaton. The truth is that, as any good fanatic, Seversky (and their ilk) only accept evidence if and only if it suits their a priori commitment to the silly religion of philosophical materialism. Truthfreedom

LoL! @ seversky:
Yet the vast majority of professional biologists, who have spent decades studying and practicing their discipline, are persuaded that the available evidence does support the theory of evolution
That alleged vast majority can't even formulate a scientific theory of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. There isn't any evidence in support of such a concept. So the Hitchen's gambit applies, Heck, your alleged vast majority don't even know what determines biological form! How pathetic is that?!
Which also means there is no demarcation criterion by which the theory of evolution can be determined to be unscientific.
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution because there isn't any way to test the claims being made. Testability is the hallmark of science: Science relies on evidence:
Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people.
The reason probability arguments exist is because the claims of blind watchmaker evolution are untestable. And because of that it is not part of science ET

Sev states
Yet the evidence from your posts indicates that you look not at the body of evidence in a given field but only for quotes that can be turned to support your religious presuppositions.
That claim is false. I have surveyed the 'body of evidence'. The 'body of evidence' itself is what contradicts and falsifies Darwinian claims. Sev then states:
In quantum mechanics, for example, you argue that the evidence supports your belief in souls, heaven and God, inferences that I think it is highly improbable the original researchers would endorse.
Actually quantum non-locality and conservation of quantum information are what support the physical reality of souls since quantum coherence is now found to be ubiquitous within all the important biomolecules of life. Whereas special relativity and the extremely ordered initial entropy of the universe supports the physical reality of a heavenly eternity above this temporal dimension. You are confusing the evidence from quantum biology with evidence from special relativity
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg June 2020 - Special Relativity strongly supports the physical reality of a heavenly 'eternal' dimension that exists above this temporal dimension that we currently live in: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/physics/black-holes-are-no-surprise-full-of-surprises/#comment-705293
That mathematics should undergird both of those 'physical' theories, i.e. quantum mechanics and special relativity, is, according to both Wigner and Einstein, a 'miracle', and that 'miracle' is what points to God. Sev then states,
the vast majority of professional biologists, who have spent decades studying and practicing their discipline, are persuaded that the available evidence does support the theory of evolution. Perhaps you are not looking for what you don’t want to see.
Hmm, first off, anyone who dares question Darwinism in academia is expelled and/or refused tenure. Secondly, despite this overt censorship of anyone who dares question Darwinian orthodoxy in academia, there are still quite a few high level biologists in academia who openly question it. i.e. "The Third Way".
The Third Way - List of (High Level) Scientists who think Darwinism is inadequate http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
Darwinism simply is not now, nor has it ever been, universally accepted among academic 'elites',
But Darwinism is universally accepted among “real” scientists! - December 30, 2016 Excerpt: A friend started making a list of books that doubt all or most of modern Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, the slightly elastic Extended Synthesis, and came up with a three-tiered, hardly exhaustive, shelf: St. George Mivart, On the Genesis of Species (1871) Charles Hodge, What Is Darwinism (1874) Samuel Butler, Evolution, Old and New (1879) Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution (1907/tr. 1911) Svante Arrhenius Worlds in the Making (1908) Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1940) Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (1941) Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947) Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959) Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (Delta, 1971) Pierre Paul Grassé: “L´evolution du vivant” (1973) Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (Harper, 1983) L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1984) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) Soren Lovtrup Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987) Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: The Memory of Nature (1988) R. F. Baum, Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud (1988) Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT (1991) Dorothy Kurth Boberg, Evolution and Reason – Beyond Darwin (1993) Remy Chauvin: “Le darwinism où le fin d´un mythe” (1997) Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Life: A New Look at Evolution (1998) Stuart Newman and Gerd Muller (eds.), Origination of Organismal Form” (2002) David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales (2006) Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again : A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution (2009) Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin God Wrong (2010) Gerd Muller and Massimo Pigliucci, Evolution: the Extended Synthesis” (2010) George McGhee, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful, MIT (2011) Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos (2012) A Lima-de-Faria, Evolution without Selection: Form and Function by Autoevolution (2013) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (2015 [updated from 1985]) Suzan Mazur’s: The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009) Paradigm Shifters (2015) and Public Evolution Summit (2016). https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/but-darwinism-is-universally-accepted-among-real-scientists/
Sev then states,
If the natural processes of life are as observably prone to degradation as Sanford claims then how did life ever get started in the first place? By his argument, we should not be here at all.
LOL, By golly I think Seversky is finally starting to get the hang of this science thing! Sev, as usual, tries to refute a scientific finding, not with better science mind you, but with a theological question.
,,,why would an omniscient God create living things that were designed by Him to degrade inevitably? What would be the point?
Well, there is a book that gets into the Theological details of exactly why God allowed death to enter this world. It is called the "Holy Bible'. But that is theology, not science, and thus you are stuck with the fact that you have provided no scientific evidence to refute Sanford (and Behe's) claim that, to use your words, "we should not be here at all." Sev then states,
biologists are well aware there are many unanswered questions in biology. For example, there are debates between panadaptationists and pluralists and those looking for a “third way”.
I already pointed out that the prominent scientists of 'The Third Way' do not believe that the evidence supports Darwinian evolution as you had originally claimed. You cannot now claim that that fact somehow, in your twisted imagination, supports your Darwinian worldview. Disingenuous would be too mild to describe you trying to co-op 'The Third Way' scientists to support your Darwinian worldview. Sev then goes on to opine that he does not believe that Popper really recanted his recantation when he 'banged his table' and said that he found Darwin's theory to be dissatisfying and that one 'ought to look for alternatives'.,. Yet, besides Horgan, I also referenced two other references that make the same point that Horgan did. Moreover, Seversky himself had just alluded to 'The Third Way', which is a group of prominent scientists who are definitely 'looking for alternatives' to Darwin's theory.,,,, That Seversky could directly contradict himself in his claims in such a short space of time never ceases to amaze me even though I've seen him do it time and time again. Seversky, in response to Lakatos noting that there is no demarcation criteria by which Darwinism can be determined to be scientific, states,
Which also means there is no demarcation criterion by which the theory of evolution can be determined to be unscientific.
That answer does not even begin to make sense from a logical standpoint and therefore serves as a perfect example as to how far down the road of illogical fallacies Seversky will go in order to defend his Darwinian atheism. Seversky then mentions Kuhn. And tries to claim I was arguing for something that I was not arguing for. I was not unambiguous of what Kuhn meant by what leads to a 'paradigm shift' in science. Unbiased readers can go reread what I wrote if they want. Seversky then dismisses these leading philosophers of science (Popper, Lakatos, and Kuhn), since they are not 'practicing biologists'. Seversky is trying to have his cake and eat it too. If leading philosophers of science call into question the claim that Darwinism is a testable science, then it is called into question, period. Seversky himself appealed to the fact that neither he, nor I, are professional 'philosophers of science'. Now that Sev sees that these leading philosophers of science do not support his Darwinian worldview, at the drop of a hat, Sev dismisses them as inconsequential. Again, 'disingenuous' is too mild of a word to describe Seversky contradictory method of reasoning. Seversky then states that Darwin was a modest man, etc... I say, "So what?" I only care if his theory is scientifically true or not. Seversky then tries to downplay the central importance of experimentation in science. Which is just as well since there is no real time experimental evidence to support his Darwinian worldview, and which also just underscores my point that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a testable, i.e. experimental, science in the fist place. Seversky then ignores the fact that Darwin's Theory has not led to any technological, or medical, breakthroughs for us as all other major theories of science have. And acts like such a stunning omission on the part of Darwinian theory is no big deal. Again, 'disingenuous' is too mild of a word to describe Seversky contradictory method of reasoning when it comes to him defending his Darwinian atheism. Seversky then acts like he does not know about the countless needless surgeries, i.e. medical malpractices, that were performed because of the erroneous Darwinian belief in 'vestigial', i.e. useless, organs. Seversky then contradicts Francis Bacon himself and states that even if a theory and/or philosophy has horrid consequences for people, those horrid consequences have no bearing on the truthfulness of the theory and/or philosophy. Again, Francis Bacon himself, the father of the scientific method, would beg to differ with Seversky,
“Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” - Francis Bacon
Seversky then tries to compare the atrocities committed by atheists in the 20th century to other atrocities. Yet all other atrocities pale into insignificance when compared to the 'killing fields' of the atheists of the 20th century. Seversky then points out that many more papers are published by evolutionary biologists every year compared to ID proponents. Fair enough. But I could also point out that many more works of fiction are written every year than are works of non-fiction written. i.e. There are far more many ways to be wrong than there are ways to be right! 'As Jesus pointed out:
Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 11
Moreover, besides failing to deliver on technological or medical breakthroughs, and besides leading to much medical malpractice. it can also be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution, besides not bearing any useful technological or medical fruit, has had a tremendous negative impact on society at large:
Neither Darwin's original theory nor its successors made any claim to offer the prospect of medical or technological breakthroughs so that's a strawman. What medical malpractice arose from the theory of evolution?
it can also be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution, besides not bearing any useful technological or medical fruit, has had a tremendous negative impact on society at large
Yes, it can be argued but only by committing the fallacy of argumentum ad consquentiam. Even if it were true that the theory had negative consequences for society, that alone would not say anything about the soundness of the theory as an account of how life on Earth diversified and flourished.
Indeed, it is hard to fathom the unmitigated horror that has been visited upon mankind by Darwinian. ideology
People were committing the most unspeakable atrocities against each other for thousands of years before Darwin published. Religion was usually more than sufficient motivation.
Thus in conclusion, by the ‘fruits produced’ criteria that was laid out by Francis Bacon himself, for judging whether a scientific theory is truthful of not, Darwinian evolution, in over the top fashion, fails to meet that criteria as well.
Really? How many papers are published in a year in the field of evolutionary biology compared with those published on intelligent design? Seversky

Bornagain77 @ 10
But hey, what do the leading philosophers of science in the 20th century, Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, know about Darwinism? After all, they did not originate Darwin’s theory did they?
Good questions. They were philosophers of science not practicing biologists. They were critiquing a theory outside their field of expertise. How do you think they would have responded if biologists had critiqued their pet philosophical positions? Aside from that, did they all reach a consensus on what constituted good science or were there differences?
Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”, and “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
Darwin was a modest, self-effacing man and, given that, is it likely he would have published if he really believed his theory was so ill-founded that it would have been shredded by his peers? In his time, displaying a becoming modesty was regarded as a virtue so the most you could accuse him of is what we now call "virtue signaling". None of it means he had fundamental doubts about his theory.
In short, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research, (i.e. inductive reasoning), that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.
Experimental research is part of science but it is not the be all and end all of science. Darwin's work was observational and theoretical which is just as important as experiment. I remind you that Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Does that mean that relativity theory is worthless? The empiricist has nothing to test without a theory. Seversky

Bornagain77 @ 9
Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
Which also means there is no demarcation criterion by which the theory of evolution can be determined to be unscientific.
And another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term ‘paradigm shift, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”
So you think Kuhn was arguing that it is improper to adjust theories to accommodate new data or eliminate apparent conflicts? If he was then I think you will find that there are a whole lot of scientists and philosophers of science that would say he was talking nonsense. If that's what he was actually saying. Seversky

Bornagain77 @ 8
Yet I did not make the statement, “I deny that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place”, in a vacuum. I made that statement after years of searching for, and asking for, any empirical evidence that would confirm that Darwinian evolution is true.
Yet the evidence from your posts indicates that you look not at the body of evidence in a given field but only for quotes that can be turned to support your religious presuppositions. In quantum mechanics, for example, you argue that the evidence supports your belief in souls, heaven and God, inferences that I think it is highly improbable the original researchers would endorse.
Thus, as far as empirical evidence itself is concerned, Darwinian evolution simply does not qualify as a science. There simply is no empirical evidence that validates Darwinian evolution as being true.
Yet the vast majority of professional biologists, who have spent decades studying and practicing their discipline, are persuaded that the available evidence does support the theory of evolution. Perhaps you are not looking for what you don't want to see.
As John Sanford and Michael Behe have now both pointed out, the empirical evidence itself now says that Darwinian processes are far more likely to degrade preexisting molecular systems than they are to ever create any new molecular system(s).
If the natural processes of life are as observably prone to degradation as Sanford claims then how did life ever get started in the first place? By his argument, we should not be here at all. Nor does it help his YEC position because we would have to ask why would an omniscient God create living things that were designed by Him to degrade inevitably? What would be the point?
Yet, in spite of all this evidence against their theory, Darwinists, by and large, simply refuse to ever admit that their theory is false, or even admit that their theory is seriously in question.
On the contrary, biologists are well aware there are many unanswered questions in biology. For example, there are debates between panadaptationists and pluralists and those looking for a "third way".
Attacked for these criticism, and as Seversky pointed out, Popper, in approx. 1978, backtracked on his criticism of Darwin’s theory. But then in 1992, Popper again reiterated his criticism of Darwin’s theory.
I don't think Popper was the kind of man to back down just because of some criticism and Horgan's anecdote is not enough to persuade me that Popper recanted his recantation. In fact, if you read it, Popper just says that he finds Darwin's theory "dissatisfying" and that "one ought to look for alternatives". The first is an expression of Popper's emotional response and the latter states the unexceptionable principle that we should always look for alternatives. Again, neither amount to a recantation of his recantation. Seversky

Upright BiPed @ 5
… says the guy who stands directly in front of the clearly-documented history of science; in front of successfully confirmed predictions, as we’ll as universal physical evidence dutifully recorded in the scientific literature over generations (which isn’t even controversial) — and dIsmisses it all in order to serve his ideology.
I haven't dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data. What I dispute is that the inferences some draw from them are compelling or even warranted.
It is also important to point out that you don’t deny the evidence-based design inference in biology because it would falsify your beliefs, you do it only because it would lend support to your intellectual opponents — the dreaded theists — and that’s the only reason you do it.
I don't deny that some make the design inference from what they observe in biology. As before, I don't accept that the inference is compelling or even warranted.
Weren’t you hanging out in this forum lately asking theists why they didn’t just kill themselves if they thought the afterlife was so great?
In Savrola, the only novel written by Winston Churchill, the hero is asked at one point about his position on an afterlife. He answers that if he really believed it existed he would kill himself out of irresistible curiosity. Since we do not observe Christians committing suicide in large numbers we could conclude that their proclaimed belief in an afterlife is somewhat less than certain. Seversky

In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to much medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs. Moreover, besides failing to deliver on technological or medical breakthroughs, and besides leading to much medical malpractice. it can also be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution, besides not bearing any useful technological or medical fruit, has had a tremendous negative impact on society at large:
How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). - per gnmagazine The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi).
Indeed, it is hard to fathom the unmitigated horror that has been visited upon mankind by Darwinian. ideology
Michael Egnor On The Relationship Between Darwinism And Totalitarianism - July 21, 2020 Excerpt: - How Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced by Darwinian ideology https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831
Thus in conclusion, by the 'fruits produced' criteria that was laid out by Francis Bacon himself, for judging whether a scientific theory is truthful of not, Darwinian evolution, in over the top fashion, fails to meet that criteria as well.
Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Thus again, to reiterate what I stated in post 2,
it is not that I am in denial of the science, as she falsely claims, it is that I deny that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place.
bornagain77

But hey, what do the leading philosophers of science in the 20th century, Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, know about Darwinism? After all, they did not originate Darwin's theory did they? So what did Darwin himself have to say about the scientific standing of his theory? Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”, and "What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857 My dear Gray, ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml 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.” 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/
Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found, (as far as the inductive methodology that Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method, had set forth), that Charles Darwin had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860) Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on 'that mystery of mysteries.' But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.html
In short, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research, (i.e. inductive reasoning), that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”. And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, (i.e. for failing to produce original experimental research), Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.” Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?- As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts.” Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the inductive reasoning of the scientific method! And over a century and a half later the situation still has not changed. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true, As Dr Richard Nelson noted in his book Darwin, Then and Now, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection. Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species. After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.” https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/book-preview/
But hey, what could Darwin, Owen and Sedgwick possibly know about the 'science' of Darwinism? Let's see what Francis Bacon himself, the father of inductive reasoning, (and therefore the father of the scientific method itself), had to say about what constitutes a real science. Francis Bacon himself stated that “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? - January 8, 2019 Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately? https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/
And by that 'fruits produced' criteria for ascertaining whether a theory is scientifically true or not, Darwin's theory, in over the top fashion, fails to meet that criteria as well.
“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. 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 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006). “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, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “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). “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)
bornagain77

Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific"
Imre Lakatos - Pseudoscience - Darwin's Theory According to the demarcation criterion of pseudoscience originally proposed by Lakatos, a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories, which predict novel fact(s).[21] Progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted. As he put it: "A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it....The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one." See pages 34–5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978. Lakatos's own key examples of pseudoscience were Ptolemaic astronomy, Immanuel Velikovsky's planetary cosmogony, Freudian psychoanalysis, 20th century Soviet Marxism,[22] Lysenko's biology, Niels Bohr's Quantum Mechanics post-1924, astrology, psychiatry, sociology, neoclassical economics, and Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that "our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience
And another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term 'paradigm shift, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict."
Thomas Kuhn Excerpt: Thomas Samuel Kuhn (/ku?n/; July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn Inquiry-Based Science Education -- on Everything but Evolution - Sarah Chaffee - January 22, 2016 Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/inquiry-based_s102534.html
And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up ad hoc theories to try to cover up those falsified predictions, then by that ‘predictability’ criteria set out by Lakatos and Kuhn, Darwinian evolution again more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than as a real and testable science. Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
As Dr. Hunter states in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
And as Dr. Hunter further noted, Darwin’s 'theory' is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.
“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter - Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine - December 2, 2010 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-based-biochemistry-turning.html
bornagain77

Seversky states,
You can deny evolution qualifies as a science. I can affirm evolution qualifies as a science. So what? Neither of us are scientists or philosophers of science so our opinions carry very little weight compared with those of the professionals who have spent decades studying and practicing their disciplines full-time.
Yet I did not make the statement, "I deny that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place", in a vacuum. I made that statement after years of searching for, and asking for, any empirical evidence that would confirm that Darwinian evolution is true. All evidence that has been presented to me, by Darwinists, that would confirm their theory to be true, or at least that it is semi-feasible,, has fallen apart under scrutiny. Their claims all turn out to be bluff and bluster. There simply is no real time empirical evidence that would confirm Darwinian evolution as being true. Not one new gene and/or protein has ever been seen to be created from scratch by Darwinian processes.,,, Not one new molecular machine or molecular system has ever been seen to be created by Darwinian processes.
Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme. Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start. This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic. Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/
As Doug Axe pointed out, "all the pomp and prestige of the academic world is powerless to change hard facts. All claims of Darwin having discovered the only scientifically valid explanation of life get torn to tiny bits when you put them in the grinder.,,,"
What Every Darwinist Could Learn From Hidden Figures - Doug Axe - PhD. in molecular biology Excerpt: Here's the steel-hard fact they most want to avoid: The evolutionary explanation of life cannot stand up to NASA-style engineering scrutiny. If you doubt this, please join me in testing it. Hand pick your Darwin sympathizers from the most esteemed places. It doesn't matter who they are, because all the pomp and prestige of the academic world is powerless to change hard facts. All claims of Darwin having discovered the only scientifically valid explanation of life get torn to tiny bits when you put them in the grinder. The response to this challenge is sure to be either silence or protest. There won't be a nerdy evolutionary biologist who marches up to the chalkboard and does the math that saves the theory. The math has been done; the theory undone. Nor will there be a lab test that shows natural selection to be a worker of wonders. We've been there. Too many tests to count, and the blind watchmaker never showed up. The protest will be familiar, organized around the usual defensive themes. Different sciences work differently! -- they'll say. It isn't reasonable to hold a historical science to engineering standards! -- they'll say. No practicing evolutionary biologist would accept your proposal as valid! -- they'll say. Let them speak. Then remind them that the difference is simply one of seriousness. When we really need to know that something will work, tested-and-approved certainty has always been the standard. Evolutionists ignore that standard because they can. Storytelling works for them because they're all telling stories together. Their grand stories are all wrong, but as long as no one is dying in orbit, most people are content to let them carry on. https://stream.org/what-every-evolutionist-could-learn-from-hidden-figures/
Thus, as far as empirical evidence itself is concerned, Darwinian evolution simply does not qualify as a science. There simply is no empirical evidence that validates Darwinian evolution as being true. In fact, there is much evidence that says Darwinian evolution is not even feasible. As John Sanford and Michael Behe have now both pointed out, the empirical evidence itself now says that Darwinian processes are far more likely to degrade preexisting molecular systems than they are to ever create any new molecular system(s).
Genetic Entropy - Sanford https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy Darwin Devolves - Behe https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617
Yet, in spite of all this evidence against their theory, Darwinists, by and large, simply refuse to ever admit that their theory is false, or even admit that their theory is seriously in question. So again, as far as empirical science is concerned, Darwinian evolution simply does not qualify as a experimental science. Real time experimental evidence, contrary to other theories in science, simply has little bearing on how Darwinists, by and large, treat their theory. As David Berlinski pointed out,
“I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] 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?” - David Berlinski - A Scientific Scandal - 2005
Seversky after hand waving off my list of falsifications of Darwin's theory as 'strawmen', pointed out that neither he, nor I, are 'professional philosophers of science' . And that our opinions carry little weight. Which is a fair enough criticism by Seversky. Seversky then mentioned Popper, (who is considered one of the greatest philosophers of science), and Popper's infamous recantation of his previous claim that Darwinian evolution did not qualify as a 'testable scientific theory'. What Seversky did not mention was Popper's recantation of his recantation. Karl Popper originally stated that, “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)
Attacked for these criticism, and as Seversky pointed out, Popper, in approx. 1978, backtracked on his criticism of Darwin's theory. But then in 1992, Popper again reiterated his criticism of Darwin's theory.
Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory.
Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – video – 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352
Here is a bit more detailed look at Popper's infamous waffle on evolutionary theory, where the authors state that "We argue, contrary to Popper’s own assessment, that he (Popper) did not change his mind at all about the substance of his original claim."
Popper’s Shifting Appraisal of Evolutionary Theory - Mehmet Elgin and Elliott Sober – Feb 2017 Excerpt: Karl Popper argued in 1974 that evolutionary theory contains no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program. Four years later, he said that he had changed his mind. Here we seek to understand Popper’s initial position and his subsequent retraction. We argue, contrary to Popper’s own assessment, that he (Popper) did not change his mind at all about the substance of his original claim. We also explore how Popper’s views have ramifications for contemporary discussion of the nature of laws and the structure of evolutionary theory. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691119
bornagain77

>"and that we need government intervention to remedy the market failure." Government intervention will not remedy any major market failure. At this point (in the US anyway), more gov't intervention only means more trouble. Gov't employs simplistic one-size-fits-all solutions aimed at a single problem with no consideration for collateral damage or downstream effects. This always results in a bigger disaster. EDTA

.
Neither of us are scientists or philosophers of science so our opinions carry very little weight compared with those of the professionals who have spent decades studying and practicing their disciplines full-time.
Sev, in order to start an open-ended evolutionary system, you have to specify something from among alternatives. The “expert” pedigree of that statement (at a minimum) begins with CS Pierce in the 1860’s, and continues on — completely unbroken — through Alan Turing’s machine, Von Neumann’s automata, Crick’s code and the adapter hypothesis, Brenner’s many contributions, Zamecnik and Hoagland’s experimental results — all the way up to and including Nirenberg’s famous sleuth work in 1961. This is then wholly extended by physicists such as Pattee and others, confirming that to “specify something among alternatives” in an open-ended evolutionary system requires an irreducible system of symbols and constraints, a language structure, and semantic closure (just as it was predicted). Go find anywhere in the literature where today’s experts in The Origin of Life (cough cough) like Szostak, Sutherland, or Joyce for instance, mention any of this in their work on The Origin of Life. When you fail to find anything, come back and explain why I should take their word over what is so clearly, coherently, and abundantly recorded in the history of science. On what grounds should I do that Sev? Upright BiPed

. I fixed your sentence for you, Sev:
You will not find evidence if all you are looking for are quotes which support your materialist-based anti-design agenda.
... says the guy who stands directly in front of the clearly-documented history of science; in front of successfully confirmed predictions, as we’ll as universal physical evidence dutifully recorded in the scientific literature over generations (which isn’t even controversial) — and dIsmisses it all in order to serve his ideology. It is also important to point out that you don’t deny the evidence-based design inference in biology because it would falsify your beliefs, you do it only because it would lend support to your intellectual opponents — the dreaded theists — and that’s the only reason you do it. In other words, you are not far enough off the bottom of the barrel to actually accept scientific knowledge, even if it allows you to maintain your core beliefs. You will deny science for pure socio-political power, and nothing else. Weren’t you hanging out in this forum lately asking theists why they didn’t just kill themselves if they thought the afterlife was so great? Nice one Sev. There is little wonder why you are here.. Upright BiPed

Bornagain77 Brilliant! Thanks! Laszlo

Bornagain77 @ 2
And it is not that I am in denial of the science, as she falsely claims, it is that I deny that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place.
You can deny evolution qualifies as a science. I can affirm evolution qualifies as a science. So what? Neither of us are scientists or philosophers of science so our opinions carry very little weight compared with those of the professionals who have spent decades studying and practicing their disciplines full-time.
In other words, there simply is no real time experimental science behind Darwinian evolution for me deny in the first place. It is hard for me, or anyone else, to deny the existence of something that doesn’t actually exist!
You will not find evidence if all you are looking for are quotes which support your religion-based anti-evolutionary agenda.
She mentioned Popper’s falsification criteria, i.e. “one can never prove that a theory is true,,, But just a single counterexample can prove a theory false.”
Not quite. As Popper was well aware, a single counter-example can falsify a simple universal claim. If the claim is that all swans are white then finding a black swan disproves that claim. But finding a species that has changed little if at all over a long period of time does not disprove evolution when there are plenty of other species that have changed significantly over time.
And by that ‘simple’ criteria, Darwinian evolution, at least how Darwinists themselves treat their theory, simply fails to qualify as a science.
Popper came to disagree as in these passages from his book Objective Knowledge:
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]

Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
We've been through those before. Whoever wrote them does not understand the theory of evolution so they amount to attacking strawmen.
Simply put, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science.

Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on presumption of methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinian atheists.
Absolute nonsense. Science is a methodical investigation of the natural world which does not invoke intelligent agency as a cause unless there are adequate reasons for doing so.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (i.e. namely, 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’.
No one denies that intelligent design exists in the Universe. We do it. But we didn't design life on Earth or this Universe. While there is a great deal of speculation and even hypothesizing, how they actually came about is unknown as yet - by anyone. There were inquiring minds well before Christianity who recognized that the ordered world in which they lived required explanation. There were cultures contemporary with Christianity but denied its blessings who nonetheless pursued scientific inquiries. Religious presuppositions, such as those of Christianity, are a hindrance to scientific inquiries however if all findings are measured against them. If you only accept results which are consonant with the tenets of your faith then you are not doing science but practicing a form of religious Lysenkoism.
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.
No, it is forcing science to conform to your own brand of Christianity which will lead to the "catastrophic epistemological failure" of science. Seversky

Well, by lumping Covid-19 with global warming and especially lumping it with evolution, she just convinced me that much of the fear surrounding Covid-19 is NOT based on actual science. And it is not that I am in denial of the science, as she falsely claims, it is that I deny that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place. In other words, there simply is no real time experimental science behind Darwinian evolution for me deny in the first place. It is hard for me, or anyone else, to deny the existence of something that doesn't actually exist! :) As Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, stated, 'Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,'
Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
She mentioned Popper's falsification criteria, i.e. "one can never prove that a theory is true,,, But just a single counterexample can prove a theory false." Or more specifically, from the horse's mouth,,
"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
Or as Richard Feynman more simply put it,
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman
And by that 'simple' criteria, Darwinian evolution, at least how Darwinists themselves treat their theory, simply fails to qualify as a science. Darwinists simply refuse to accept any evidence that falsifies their theory (I.e they are in 'denial' of the scientific evidence). Nor will Darwinists specify exactly what might falsify their theory. As Denis Nobel. President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated,
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
In short, Darwinists themselves are in 'denial' of the science! 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.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“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
There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to and say, 'and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science'. Simply put, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on presumption of methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinian atheists. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (i.e. namely, 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 found just 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, (i.e. illusory), 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). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
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, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
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;
bornagain77

Sabine has a new article on flat-earthers that gets closer to the truth but still sort of misses the point. In an era when ABSOLUTELY ALL public voices of "science" are telling us MURDEROUS LIES about all topics, more and more people are deciding to trust other sources. The alternate sources may lie sometimes, but at least they aren't putting us in prison, starving us, or binding and gagging us. It's not a question of liking or offending, it's a question of SURVIVAL. polistra

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply