Dec 142005
 

The Darwinian mindset never ceases to amaze me. I will let you all take first crack at this guy. 😉 I don’t want to give the ending away but guess what is missing in the following “Evolution for Everyone” article?

There isn’t any consideration by Wilson to investigate the cause for the skepticism of evolution. Wilson’s Darwinian myopia prevents him from the practice of science. His solution to skepticism of evolution is more indoctrination.

PLoS : Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution

Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory. Most people are familiar with the dismal statistics, showing how a large fraction of Americans at all educational levels do not accept the theory of evolution [1], how efforts to teach evolution often fail to have an impact [2], and how constant vigilance is required to keep evolution in the public school curriculum [3]. Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don’t relate it to matters of importance in their own lives. There appear to be two walls of resistance, one denying the theory altogether and the other denying its relevance to human affairs.

  16 Responses to “Evolution for Everyone”

  1. Teleologist,

    Yes, I just added an update, including the words of Casey Luskin and of Jonathan Marks. After reading them I conclude that:

    We deeply encourage everybody to critically analyze evolution. The real science must be something non-esoteric and non-cryptic, but rather, fully available to everyone’s consideration, and this, of course, is contrary to the views of those supremacist evolutionists in control today.

    The most critics of evolution available, the best results for the freedom and for the progress of today’s real science!”

  2. [1] Efforts to teach Darwinian evolution fail to have an impact because most people don’t find the evidence or arguments convincing. Common sense and experience tell most people that spontaneous generation doesn’t and didn’t happen, and that random mutations couldn’t have turned dirt into Mozart even in four billion years (which is only 10^17 seconds, by the way).

    [3] Darwinian evolution really is of no relevance to any matters of importance in our lives (unless you earn a living teaching or promoting it). No only that, it is of no relevance or importance even in scientific matters. The real breakthroughs and insights in biology come from biochemists, molecular biologists and the like. Once the discoveries are made, evolutionary biologists come along and provide a meaningless rhetorical gloss, making up stories about how Darwinian mechanisms did it.

  3. fdocc writes on Research on ID
    The difference with other scientific theories is that evolution is “established” by the deliberate concealing of the details that make it false, like this detail on “speciation”, and by all the other outward lies of “evolution”.

    This is why I said Wilson like other Darwinians have completely missed the point. Americans are smarter than they think. Darwinians need to come down from the ivory tower of Isengard.

    Efforts to teach Darwinian evolution fail to have an impact because most people don’t find the evidence or arguments convincing.

    This is why Darwinian evolution is a cultic. Darwinians are incapable of an objective practice of the scientific method. Resulting in inane statements like this “despite being as well established as any scientific theory.” .

    Darwinian evolution really is of no relevance to any matters of importance in our lives (unless you earn a living teaching or promoting it).

    😀 I haven’t thought of that. So true!

  4. Another example of why Americans find Darwinism not credible is because of nonsensical statements from the Darwinian priesthood. bipod over at TT posted on comments by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins said,

    That’s ludicrous. That’s ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it’s not anticipatory of what’s needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive. That’s a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do– hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging– whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It’s because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

    Dawkins is the one being ludicrous and ridiculous. Any thinking person applying a little bit of logic will conclude that an advantageous trait that arises randomly over long periods is still subject to random acts of nature. Natural fires, lightning, drought, chance predatory success, and numerous random natural causes can eliminate the advantageous genes.

    On the positive side, ID must be making an impact when Dawkins is running away from the blind random nature of Darwinism. Darwinists now feel compel to include some form of directed process in order to make Darwinian evolution viable. This is as close to defeat as we will see from Darwinian cults.

  5. Hi, teleologist, don’t be so sure about Darwinian evolution being defeated. It is so plastic, it can accomodate just about anything (even a precambrian rabbit). Remember not so long ago, when so called “junk” DNA was prediction of evolution? So now when we know that “junk” DNA is not a junk, guess what?

  6. So please anyone, how should I make theory of evolution relate to matters of importance in my own life? This must be a joke!

  7. S. Salthe wrote:

    I am a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory — which was my own erstwhile field of specialization in biology. My opposition is fundamentally to its sole reliance on competition as an explanatory principle (in a background of chance). Aside from being a bit thin in the face of complex systems, it has the disadvantage, in the mythological context of explaining where we come from, of reducing all evolution to the effects of competition. I see this as morally vicious, if understandable in the genealogical sense that it serves as a myth congenial to capitalism. Motivated thus, I have found that upon close examination there are many limitations on the power of Darwinian explanations. For example, it would appear that population genetics theory has been (for over 60 years) limited, IN GENERAL, to modeling changes only in single traits (see “Analysis and Critique of the Concept of Natural Selection” [here]).

  8. Interestingly, the author is from Binghampton University. One of the premier signatories of the Discovery Institute 450 is also at Binghampton. Apparently the indoctrination didn’t reach that particular professor. LOL!

    I’m pleased to present, Stanley Salthe:

    http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/

  9. Darwinian evolution really is of no relevance to any matters of importance in our lives (unless you earn a living teaching or promoting it).

    Or earn a living Destroying it! Wooohooo! Go Bill Dembski!

    Salvador

  10. Hi inunison,

    You are right. Nothing can affect the minds of the religious Darwinists.

    Like Hell itself, Darwin’s theory of evolution is often said to be protected by walls that are at least seven miles thick, in that it is not only true, but unassailable. — David Berlinski

    Nevertheless I am encouraged by the latest Darwinian flip-flop and confusion. The real battleground is with the next generation at the universities. IDEA clubs are the infantry soldiers for ID.

    Hey Sal, good catch. I am safe to assume Salthe won’t be a guest lecturer in Wilson’s class. We don’t want to confuse our students’ brainwashing indoctrination education with facts contradicting evolution.

    Also a good comment about Bill, except his work is also for the force of good. 🙂

  11. Sometimes I get the equation wrong.
    How does it go again? … neo-Darwinian evolution is the result of random genetic mutations being selected, culled, directed, chosen, etc. by natural selection.
    Natural selection is that process by which the genetic mutations are chosen by nature, the environment, chance, luck what have you (but it certainly isn’t random).
    But why isn’t natural selection a random process, according to Dawkins? Because it is guided. Guided by what?

    Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive.

    Natural selection determines which genes survive and which don’t, but is in turn guided by which genes survive and which don’t. Interesting.

  12. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive.

    Daron,

    Maybe you can explain and give examples of how natural selection guides any putative (advantageous/neutral) mutation to avoid chance predation, environmental mishaps, differential survival and the contoured fitness landscape.

  13. Of course I can’t, Teleologist.
    I guess my irony gauge was set too low.
    I was poking a bit of fun at what looks to me like Dawkins taultology.

  14. What is interesting in this article is the admission by Carroll, a genetics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    The first revolution came when Charles Darwin published his seminal book on evolution, “The Origin of Species.”

    Darwin explained how, over eons, living organisms became diverse through a process called natural selection, meaning that nature decided which species had best adapted to their environment, and thus would thrive.

    The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics.

    But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved.

    “The strange thing about the theory of evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it. But we do not.” –Stuart Kauffman, 2003

    “Biology still lacks a theory of organization”. The need for a conceptual framework for the study of organization lies at the heart of unsolved problems in both ontogeny and phylogeny.” –Mary West-Eberhard, 2003

    “We do not claim that the fundamental laws of physics (and thus of chemistry) do not hold in biology; they, of course, do. But we do claim that their conceptual frame is too narrow. Rather we have to find new concepts that transcend the purely microscopic descriptions of systems.” –Kelso & Haken, 1995

    “We do not even know what biology is about, in the same sense that we know what mechanics is about, or what optics is about, or what thermodynamics is about. We thus do not know the scope of the domain of biology, for it has as yet no objectively definable bounds. In place of these, we have only a tacit consensus.” –Robert Rosen, 1991

    “S’il est vrai que le darwinisme est le seul lieu théorique de la biologie, c’est qu’en effect il est le seul à introduire un virtuel, l’ensemble des évolutions possibles d’une espèce en un temps et en lieu donnés. Mais ce virtuel est incontrôlé, on ne peut rien en dire.”
    [“If it’s true that Darwinism alone constitutes the theoretical portion of biology, that’s is because it alone introduces a virtual reality, namely, the collection of all the possible evolutions of a species in a given time and place. But this virtual reality is uncontrolled; one can say nothing about it.”] — René Thom, 1990

    “The delusion of the finished [evolutionary] synthesis places restrictions on freedom of thought of which its believers are unaware. Selectionists [i.e., those who think that natural selection is the principal mechanism in evolution] point to the internal debates as evidence of free discussion, but the freedom is bounded by the dead hand of Darwin.”
    –Robert Reid, 1985

  15. I was poking a bit of fun at what looks to me like Dawkins taultology.

    Daron,

    I guess I missed the subtlety. Yes, I can see the tautology in your last sentence now. Sorry about that. 🙂

  16. No concerns, Teleologist.
    It seems I am never as clear as I think I am.

    Happy New Year!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.