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

. 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_{August 25, 2020
August
08
Aug
25
25
2020
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 Brilliant! Thanks!Laszlo_{August 25, 2020
August
08
Aug
25
25
2020
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

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_{August 25, 2020
August
08
Aug
25
25
2020
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

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_{August 25, 2020
August
08
Aug
25
25
2020
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

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_{August 24, 2020
August
08
Aug
24
24
2020
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply