Part II - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods before Me
Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution-Part 2.mp3
In part 1, I ended by saying, “In part II, I will show that a pre-commitment to the theory of evolution is the least of the evolutionist problems.” What then is the biggest problem facing the evolutionist? To answer this question we will need to take a look at history again and to note that Darwin was not the first person to forward a naturalistic explanation of the world and universe. Actually the idea existed long before Darwin ever came on the scene. The title belongs to a long list of philosophers. In 1860, one year after the publishing of “On the Origin” of Species, Richard Owen took offense to the publishing of the book in the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Owen basically said to Charles Darwin, you make it sound like you came up with this theory. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic explanation of the world and the existence of the different species we see was anticipated by philosophers like Kant and Spinoza and Fichte and Hegel, Krause, Feuerbach, Diderot, Buchner, Engels, Lametrie and d’Holbach. All these philosophers had beaten Darwin to the punch. So let’s not mince words here, Darwinism; the theory of Evolution, was philosophical, not scientific in its origin. Darwin merely gave the theory a mechanism, mainly natural selection, through which the things that philosophers had proposed could be accomplished.
So now here we have it, a well respected scientist piggy-backing on the work of Philosophers - talk about strange bed fellows. I am also sorry to say that the product of this un-holy union has been surmounted over and over again by strong arguments, past and present; yet people still maintain it.
The Evolutionist can still not explain:
• The mechanism of evolution
• The taxonomic gaps in the fossil record.
• The appearance of matter
• The emergence of life
• The emergence of self-conscious intelligence
• The emergence of morality
• The eternality of matter given entropy.
The theory of evolution cannot avoid contradictions with known principles of genetics. And so I feel justified in maintaining what I proposed in Part 1, that the evolutionists have a pre-commitment to the theory and are just as dogmatic in their faithful following of the worldview as they were back in the days of Darwin and Huxley.
A prime example of this is one Theodosius Dobzhansky, a modern proponent of the theory of evolution living in “our time” (he died in 1977). He said that I can explain evolution, “If the assumption is made that life arose from non-life only once.” That’s great but talk about a tall order; I can make a million dollars if you give me a million dollars just once. Again this is a modern proponent and one of the best known. Darwin’s theory of evolution merely gives these philosophical pre-supposition a veneer of scientific respectability, but not scientific at its core.
Furthermore we should note that Darwinism is not something men hold to because of empirical evidence. In 1985 Michael Denton wrote in his book, “A Theory in Crisis,” “There can be no question that Darwin had nothing like sufficient evidence to establish his theory of Evolution.” When Darwin published his book, no evolution of species was directly observed in the natural order nor was there direct evidence that natural selection had caused any new biological organisms. Darwin himself wrote that, “The infinitude of connecting links in the natural order was crucial to his theory.” He went on to admit that he was unable to prove even one. Everything the theory called for to be scientific was missing down to the point that when Darwin explained natural selection he said, “let me beg my reader to offer a couple of hypothetical examples.” Does this sound like Science to you? Let me offer you a hypothetical example of how we can cure cancer. The theory of evolution if firmly planted on something other than Science.
Let’s press the theory even more: Have you ever thought of this; the theory of evolution has not been empirically derived but also that it cannot be demonstrated scientifically either? We can’t go back and observe the evolution of the species. We can’t observe the evolution of new species now because it takes such long periods of time to reach fruition. So then the theory must always remain somewhat speculative. In 1977 Stephen Jay Gould wrote in the journal, Paleobiology, “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stand embedded in the history of western culture. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of Nature.” Please note that this man testifies in court cases against the teaching of Intelligent design in schools because it is not science, but that he himself freely admits that the theory of evolution is a philosophical stand not based on observation (metaphysics, the study of being is a branch of philosophy).
But the worst is yet to come because it turns out that when philosophers turned to investigate the theory of evolution as a scientific theory; it was not found to be a scientific theory… at all. We look out at the world and we see a vast number of different types of species, from germs to carrots to birds, flowers, weeds, whales, goats, tigers, eagles, man, woman and on and on it goes. So how did such a profuse variety of species come about? It is actually caught quite nicely in the title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species. That title is actually abbreviated; the title of the book is, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ Given the struggle for existence and preservation in this world, those species which are most fit, those which are best adapted to the environment will survive to reproduce their kind.
The less fit will be replaced by the most fit through the process which Darwin called natural selection. And so organisms will get more advanced over time.
Do you understand what the theory is? What’s the problem with it? Let see if we can put it down with one philosophical shot to the head. Whenever a theory relates one class of things to another, whether by identity or by causation or whatever, the relationship really isn’t that important. Whenever you say, this class of things is related to this class of things (any philosopher will tell you this), the only way to test that theory is to independently verify the different classes. Let me illustrate:
If I were to say to you, all the kindest people in this world are Christians; kind people (the first class) is related to Christians (the second class) by kindness. The only way I can test that theory is by independently verifying the person’s Christianity and the person’s kindness. You show me a kind person and I say to you, she is a Christian and you would say, now wait a minute; you have to first find out if she is a Christian. You bring me a Christian and I say to you, there sits a kind person; you would say wait a second you have to first verify the person’s kindness. You get the point. Let’s go back to evolution; Darwin said that the fittest organisms will survive. But Darwin’s theory never established an independent criterion for what constitutes a “fit” organism. There was not an independent way to test which organism was the fittest organism apart from looking at which animals survived. And thus it is not a testable theory in any scientific sense it is only what is called a trivial verbal truth. That is, you are just repeating your commitment to the idea that only the fittest will survive. So whenever I bring you a survivor, evolutionists will just say, well that’s just because it was the fittest. At that point I will cry out, no, no, no you must first verify it is the fittest. Now I know some of you are screaming out there right now that actually, scientists do have a criterion for what constitute a fit organism. And yes it is true that if you were to dig a little you will find some scientist that have forwarded theories for testing fitness and they have all failed. Furthermore, in the nature of the case, they will always fail. Here is why: Let’s say we are studying a pack of wolves and in this pack we notice one wolf with overdeveloped back legs. That wolf can run faster than any other wolf and so will be a lot more efficient at catching prey and surviving. Conversely, the wolves with the less developed back legs will surely die off from starvation when times are hard; perhaps the Gazelles (their prey) are themselves evolving. Looks like a pretty good scientific theory right; you can test it and so forth? That is until you remember that living organisms are highly developed and interdependent biological organisms and that the highly developed back legs of that wolf might put such a strain on its heart that it might have a heart attack. Incidentally, this happen all the time in the real world. So how are we going to know if the wolf with the highly developed back legs is more fit that the other wolves? It’s all going to depend on if he survives. And we are right back to survival of the fittest which really means the survival of the… survivors.
Darwin never offered the world a scientific theory my friends; although the smoke and mirrors game has been used by its proponents to dress it up as such. This was never a scientific theory. It was a perspective, a philosophy that was imposed on the facts rather than something which arose from or could be tested by the facts. So it might not surprise you, although it ought to anger you that Darwin’s theory of survival or the forming of new species by natural selection has been quietly abandoned by our universities and if the terminology is still used it has been redefined.
The theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; let’s keep the dialogue going and until part III of the presentation, where I will deal with the evidence behind the theory, until such time, goodbye.
Evolution-Part 2.mp3
In part 1, I ended by saying, “In part II, I will show that a pre-commitment to the theory of evolution is the least of the evolutionist problems.” What then is the biggest problem facing the evolutionist? To answer this question we will need to take a look at history again and to note that Darwin was not the first person to forward a naturalistic explanation of the world and universe. Actually the idea existed long before Darwin ever came on the scene. The title belongs to a long list of philosophers. In 1860, one year after the publishing of “On the Origin” of Species, Richard Owen took offense to the publishing of the book in the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Owen basically said to Charles Darwin, you make it sound like you came up with this theory. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic explanation of the world and the existence of the different species we see was anticipated by philosophers like Kant and Spinoza and Fichte and Hegel, Krause, Feuerbach, Diderot, Buchner, Engels, Lametrie and d’Holbach. All these philosophers had beaten Darwin to the punch. So let’s not mince words here, Darwinism; the theory of Evolution, was philosophical, not scientific in its origin. Darwin merely gave the theory a mechanism, mainly natural selection, through which the things that philosophers had proposed could be accomplished.
So now here we have it, a well respected scientist piggy-backing on the work of Philosophers - talk about strange bed fellows. I am also sorry to say that the product of this un-holy union has been surmounted over and over again by strong arguments, past and present; yet people still maintain it.
The Evolutionist can still not explain:
• The mechanism of evolution
• The taxonomic gaps in the fossil record.
• The appearance of matter
• The emergence of life
• The emergence of self-conscious intelligence
• The emergence of morality
• The eternality of matter given entropy.
The theory of evolution cannot avoid contradictions with known principles of genetics. And so I feel justified in maintaining what I proposed in Part 1, that the evolutionists have a pre-commitment to the theory and are just as dogmatic in their faithful following of the worldview as they were back in the days of Darwin and Huxley.
A prime example of this is one Theodosius Dobzhansky, a modern proponent of the theory of evolution living in “our time” (he died in 1977). He said that I can explain evolution, “If the assumption is made that life arose from non-life only once.” That’s great but talk about a tall order; I can make a million dollars if you give me a million dollars just once. Again this is a modern proponent and one of the best known. Darwin’s theory of evolution merely gives these philosophical pre-supposition a veneer of scientific respectability, but not scientific at its core.
Furthermore we should note that Darwinism is not something men hold to because of empirical evidence. In 1985 Michael Denton wrote in his book, “A Theory in Crisis,” “There can be no question that Darwin had nothing like sufficient evidence to establish his theory of Evolution.” When Darwin published his book, no evolution of species was directly observed in the natural order nor was there direct evidence that natural selection had caused any new biological organisms. Darwin himself wrote that, “The infinitude of connecting links in the natural order was crucial to his theory.” He went on to admit that he was unable to prove even one. Everything the theory called for to be scientific was missing down to the point that when Darwin explained natural selection he said, “let me beg my reader to offer a couple of hypothetical examples.” Does this sound like Science to you? Let me offer you a hypothetical example of how we can cure cancer. The theory of evolution if firmly planted on something other than Science.
Let’s press the theory even more: Have you ever thought of this; the theory of evolution has not been empirically derived but also that it cannot be demonstrated scientifically either? We can’t go back and observe the evolution of the species. We can’t observe the evolution of new species now because it takes such long periods of time to reach fruition. So then the theory must always remain somewhat speculative. In 1977 Stephen Jay Gould wrote in the journal, Paleobiology, “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stand embedded in the history of western culture. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of Nature.” Please note that this man testifies in court cases against the teaching of Intelligent design in schools because it is not science, but that he himself freely admits that the theory of evolution is a philosophical stand not based on observation (metaphysics, the study of being is a branch of philosophy).
But the worst is yet to come because it turns out that when philosophers turned to investigate the theory of evolution as a scientific theory; it was not found to be a scientific theory… at all. We look out at the world and we see a vast number of different types of species, from germs to carrots to birds, flowers, weeds, whales, goats, tigers, eagles, man, woman and on and on it goes. So how did such a profuse variety of species come about? It is actually caught quite nicely in the title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species. That title is actually abbreviated; the title of the book is, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ Given the struggle for existence and preservation in this world, those species which are most fit, those which are best adapted to the environment will survive to reproduce their kind.
The less fit will be replaced by the most fit through the process which Darwin called natural selection. And so organisms will get more advanced over time.
Do you understand what the theory is? What’s the problem with it? Let see if we can put it down with one philosophical shot to the head. Whenever a theory relates one class of things to another, whether by identity or by causation or whatever, the relationship really isn’t that important. Whenever you say, this class of things is related to this class of things (any philosopher will tell you this), the only way to test that theory is to independently verify the different classes. Let me illustrate:
If I were to say to you, all the kindest people in this world are Christians; kind people (the first class) is related to Christians (the second class) by kindness. The only way I can test that theory is by independently verifying the person’s Christianity and the person’s kindness. You show me a kind person and I say to you, she is a Christian and you would say, now wait a minute; you have to first find out if she is a Christian. You bring me a Christian and I say to you, there sits a kind person; you would say wait a second you have to first verify the person’s kindness. You get the point. Let’s go back to evolution; Darwin said that the fittest organisms will survive. But Darwin’s theory never established an independent criterion for what constitutes a “fit” organism. There was not an independent way to test which organism was the fittest organism apart from looking at which animals survived. And thus it is not a testable theory in any scientific sense it is only what is called a trivial verbal truth. That is, you are just repeating your commitment to the idea that only the fittest will survive. So whenever I bring you a survivor, evolutionists will just say, well that’s just because it was the fittest. At that point I will cry out, no, no, no you must first verify it is the fittest. Now I know some of you are screaming out there right now that actually, scientists do have a criterion for what constitute a fit organism. And yes it is true that if you were to dig a little you will find some scientist that have forwarded theories for testing fitness and they have all failed. Furthermore, in the nature of the case, they will always fail. Here is why: Let’s say we are studying a pack of wolves and in this pack we notice one wolf with overdeveloped back legs. That wolf can run faster than any other wolf and so will be a lot more efficient at catching prey and surviving. Conversely, the wolves with the less developed back legs will surely die off from starvation when times are hard; perhaps the Gazelles (their prey) are themselves evolving. Looks like a pretty good scientific theory right; you can test it and so forth? That is until you remember that living organisms are highly developed and interdependent biological organisms and that the highly developed back legs of that wolf might put such a strain on its heart that it might have a heart attack. Incidentally, this happen all the time in the real world. So how are we going to know if the wolf with the highly developed back legs is more fit that the other wolves? It’s all going to depend on if he survives. And we are right back to survival of the fittest which really means the survival of the… survivors.
Darwin never offered the world a scientific theory my friends; although the smoke and mirrors game has been used by its proponents to dress it up as such. This was never a scientific theory. It was a perspective, a philosophy that was imposed on the facts rather than something which arose from or could be tested by the facts. So it might not surprise you, although it ought to anger you that Darwin’s theory of survival or the forming of new species by natural selection has been quietly abandoned by our universities and if the terminology is still used it has been redefined.
The theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; let’s keep the dialogue going and until part III of the presentation, where I will deal with the evidence behind the theory, until such time, goodbye.
posted by Danian Michael at
4:30 PM
12 Comments:
Danian,
congrats on the radio show and a great follow-up to part two. You still have not convinced me to abandon my belief in evolution but I thought your analysis of the pack of wolves and your philosophical analysis of the "survival of the survivors" was pretty good and unique. I need to go do some homework.
1:30 this Sunday, I will be listening.
Agent of Change,
Welcome back and thank you for the kind words.
So you remain unconvinced of the fallacy that is Evolution. Quite frankly I am not surprised by that, as your reaction would be classified as typical. If you buy a bottle of pain killers they will tell you take two pills in the event of a headache. Perhaps in this case, your headache requires 3 pills. Part 3 just might do the trick.
Keep visiting and listening.
Danian,
Man, in your research did you not find anything good about the theory? Maybe you should check your glasses Danian. You go looking for bad and you will find it.
I will say this however, your analysis is making me think about aspects of the theory I had not considered before.
I guess I should say good job and analysis. I want to see what you do with part 3.
Tell me something Danian, how can someone with an engineering degree be so bent against Science?
Danian, I can understand that Darwin's orignal work may have been lacking in sufficient evidence, but that was 150 years ago! So much more discovery has taken place since then. I suggest that you look at more modern findings on the theory of evolution. Wikipedia has a decent article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Theories by definition can always be supplanted by new theories or nullified altogether. Such is the evolution (pun intended) of human knowledge. In my opinion, Darwin benefited the human knowledgebase by submitting his hypothesis to which others later have been able to provide more substantive and objective data using both genetic research and the examples of living and long-dead species.
See you in Part 3!
Terror,
I see you have been paying close attention to my work; your reference to checking my glasses for example, indicates you are a student. Very nice!
Did I find anything good about the theory? By good I hope you mean, did I find anything that was factual about the theory; as my (our) personal feelings are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the theory. I’m going to bite the bullet and say no, my own research did not turn up any science based on facts (on the theory of evolution strictly speaking). And I will say this; it is not easy to stay on these guys, as they keep moving the target. When faced with tough counter evidence, they will redefine and hide things. I find this so peculiar: Scientist have never been afraid of being proven wrong, indeed it is a opportunity for growth. Don’t you find that striking?
Incidentally I am not opposed to science, and I have said this before, I believe the scientist do important work, that is undeniable as I sit here typing on my computer. I just don’t believe science is beyond scrutiny and its findings are certainly not infallible.
By the way thanks for the compliment.
Reality Check,
You are right a lot of discovery has taken place since Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” and they have served to undermine the theory yet the scientific community has not denounced it. See I don’t mind Darwin proposing a theory, what I do mind is the complete lack of objectivity of its followers. Why can’t a scientist come out and say Darwinism has failed, we have to go back to the drawing board, without being ostracized by the scientific community?
I read that Wikipedia article and it is amazing that there is no acknowledgment of its weaknesses or that it is still a work in progress. Survival by the fittest for example has been surmounted over and over again by strong arguments like the one I presented and yet I do not see an answer forthcoming and I doubt there will be.
Notice too that Evolution has been redefined with no acknowledgment of the failure of the previous version. That evolution piece in Wikipedia should be called bate and switch.
Organisms inheriting the traits of their parents is NOT Evolution. If a mixed couple have kids, their kids are not considered the product of evolution.
How do we test survival of the fittest other than just calling survivors the fittest. That question is still un-answered, do you have an answer for me? Where is the evidence that survival of the fittest cause the formation of even one new specie?
Danian, I'm going to address some of your counter arguments one at a time. First...
You stated, "Notice too that Evolution has been redefined with no acknowledgment of the failure of the previous version. That evolution piece in Wikipedia should be called bate and switch."
Failure? As you've argued, the original ideas around evolution were more philosophical than scientific. Do you really categorize those initial creative outlays of ideas as failures? If everyone felt that way, our society would come to a screeching halt. No one would feel comfortable putting forth new ideas that could not be readily proven for risk of public ridicule or worse. It took centuries for science and technology to catch up with the original ideas around evolution and no doubt scientists are still working on proving out the theory today. But that shouldn't devalue the original ideas. As the article does, we should recognize the original thinkers who help our society jump forward in knowledge.
Remember what happened to the original proponents that the earth was not the center of the universe? They sacrificed their lives for their ideas because the technology and knowledge did not exist to fully prove-out their bold ideas. Who were their judges and executioners? Those who felt their religious views and power were under attack.
Do you believe the earth is the center of the universe still?
Danian,
Let me adjust my bullet-proof helmet as I type...
Your wolf story was good at examining your point, however, there are problems with your claim. You make the assumption right away that a evolutionary biologist would define the surviving wolves as the most fit. You are defining "fit" as those who survive. But, an evolutionary biologist would agree that the "fitness" of a creature depends on the environment, and that the fitter is not always the sole survivor (you assumed that all of the unfit wolves died off).
How do you defend that you are using an argument that is classically refuted (dubbed the "Tautology" argument, argued against by Gould here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_tautology.html), and is even suggested to not be used by creationist advocates? See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Danian, reply #2... Regarding your statement,
"Organisms inheriting the traits of their parents is NOT Evolution. If a mixed couple have kids, their kids are not considered the product of evolution... How do we test survival of the fittest other than just calling survivors the fittest. That question is still un-answered, do you have an answer for me? Where is the evidence that survival of the fittest cause the formation of even one new specie?"
You've focused your arguments against 'survival of the fittest.' In fact modern evolution theory calls out 3 mechanisms, namely, Natural selection, Genetic drift, and Gene flow. Understandably, natural selection is hard to defend with physical evidence unless you have millenias worth of gene pool data and the corresponding environmental history to examine. Hence, that's why the study of unique species in unique environments such as the Galapagos (sp?) Islands is extremely valuable. Why is it that so many lifeforms are strongly tied to the specific environment that they live in and would die off in other environments?
No, not every offspring is a 'survivor'. I don't think that was the literal gist. But over thousands of generations the impact of the environment, disease, and even society can alter the genetic make-up of a people. Why do you think people from Africa are predominantly dark skinned, while those living in northern climates are light skinned? How could those differences have emerged otherwise when geneticists can trace human lineage back to a single 'mother'?
Evolution doesn't happen with a bang. One species does not evolve into an entirely new species overnight. It's small changes that accumulate generation by generation.
Have you ever seen pictures from cat or dog shows from 100 years ago? The dog's look completely different than they do now because of how humans have breed them to meet their vision of an ideal looking animal. If that can happen only over a small number of generations, what could happen over thousands?!?!
Again I have to ask, what is with all the fake names? You guys...
Sad Machines,
First let me say thank you for listening (or reading) my presentation and for taking the time to respond.
Let me first say that your first link did not work; I would love to read Gould’s defense of my argument; if you can send me a different link or the article itself that would be great.
I read the article contained in your second link, including your brief refutation. And I must say that I don’t see a reason to abandon this line of questioning. I want to know what constitute a fit organism? With regards to the unfit species that didn’t die off, where are they? Where are the un-evolved human beings that survived? And if you are saying that unfit organisms do in fact survive then you have just served a knock-out blow to the whole idea of survival of the fittest creating new species. So I ask again, is there such a thing as a fit organism and if so, how do you identify a fit organism so that the theory can be tested scientifically?
Remember also, lets not redefine terms: Survival by the fittest was forwarded as the reason why different species exist; from rocks to carrots to germs to apes. If un-fit organisms survived then were is the taxonomic record alive or dead?
Hope to hear from you again?
Danian,
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_tautology.html
This should work. Perhaps you grabbed the parenthesis along with the URL.
Regarding my remarks about survival of the unfit, please allow me to borrow a passage from EvoWiki:
[Let's assume we have two rabbits identical in every way except that one rabbit can run faster than the other. Since the ability to run is important for the survival of rabbits, we would say that the faster rabbit is more fit - and therefore, more likely to survive. However, if the faster rabbit happens to get an infection and dies, we do not simply say that the slower rabbit *must* have been more fit to survive because it survived when the faster rabbit didn't. We maintain our original idea that the faster rabbit was more fit, but that *in general* the fittest organisms tend to survive more frequently than the unfit. The argument that "survival of the fittest is a tautology" claims that evolutionists believe that "the fittest" and "survivors" are identical groups (evolutionists don't believe that), and that evolutionists have no way to judge fitness other than survival (which is false).]
Obtained from http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Survival_of_the_fittest_is_a_tautology
I know that Iphone doesn't support any of those files, but is it somehow possible (maybe with an application) to watch a movie with my Iphone? And does Iphone support other formats except mpeg4?
[url=http://unlockiphone22.com]unlock iphone[/url]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home