Red Dynamite by Carl R. Weinberg | Paperback 

Do Darwin Critics Reject Evolution Because They’re Anti-Communists? Carl Weinberg Says Yes

I was alerted to this book by the post at Evo-News, the ID site, and  there is also a review:

I haven’t yet read this book but it has a free Kindle so I will go through it and comment again. But I can see already the hopeless confusion of Darwinists on the subject of evolution and the way the ID camp, if not the creationists can sink such books on the spot. My reaction is, What a waste? The issue is very simple: natural selection is statistically impossible as a source of evolutionary constructs. Darwinists, no matter how many times the problem is pointed to, are incapable of grasping the statistical error at the foundation of the whole Darwinian phantom ‘science’. The ID-ists win every argument here despite their own confusions over theism and design. A pyrrhic victory, therefore. If natural selection fails then the obvious problem arises with design, where does it come from. Here the creationists/ID-its fall into their own confusion by trying to graft a scientific argument onto a Biblical argument completely obscuring the whole design question. In any case, the design of biological entities show a mysterious design. And that can be problematic, but only because science can’t yet solve the problem which founders in some of the classic antinomial issues of Kant: you cannot prove the existence of god using a design argument, and the ‘design inference’ of Dembski however suggestive simply fails as proof however tantalizing as evidence, which induces design hallucinations.

Update: I forgot to address the issue of communism raised. But communism/socialism was in existence before Darwin and it was the blunder of Marx to graft that onto his work, to its great detriment. Lamarck was a radical leftist for his time (French Revolution) and his basic intuition about evolution was superior to the klutz thinking of Darwin.

Still, the design inference is a suggestive formulation of a tricky subject. If you can’t use the design argument to prove the existence of god, you can’t disprove it either, save only that the theistic tack is always such gibberish if bad theology that the anti-designist wins by default. That’s the catch: a design argument must be constructivist but that always fails. The history of monotheism shows the reign of delusive design arguments.
Note however that the ancient Israelites, in their now lot core vision, not really theitsts, and warned sternly of the dangers of ‘god reference’, insisting on pointing only, with a glyph for the unamable, IHVH, soon its coopte in the degenerate ‘Jehovah’.
In a way the point is obvious: evolution invokes design inference, but the trap is to cheat on the argument and then sneak the dated and obsolete theism of the Old Testament, confounding the issue. The obvious agenda of natural selection is to try and force the issue with the natural selection fallacy. Times have changed and evidence of design now seems more obviously to be unable to resolve the issues of theism. Prior beliefs in divinity in the Christian brand fail to grapple with the issue. Design in nature is a scientific issue without so far any real science, it would be of a type we can’t yet resolve to naturalistic laws known so far. Scientists can’t live with ambiguity and have foisted a myth of science on the question, to the great discredit to scientific integrity. It is a strange case of the emperor with no clothes.

There is the further issue of the left, communism, and Marxist embrace of evolution. So what? Marxists have been consistently wrong about Darwinism and are Darwin dummmies of the first order, confused by the dogma of Marx (who one suspects never quite got over his initial skepticism) who created a false materialism based on a false evolutionism.

I am a (neo-) communist/socialist, and critic of Marxism, and reject evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) but do not reject the idea of evolution or the massive empirical evidence as a fact of nature, whatever the nature of the science not yet in existence. A theory of evolution, a real one simply does not arise in the oversimplification of old-fashioned reductionist scientism. And the damage done by Darwinism has discredited the reputation of biologists and turned them into a laughing stock, but one very much empowered with a social ideology they are able to enforce and which forces the real issues to outsiders as here.
Evo_News, the ID camp website next to Uncommon Descent, reviews the book and as usual makes short work of the confusions of still another of the Darwin Dummies of academia. The idea that Darwinism somehow also is a foundation for progressives, communism, with a thesis pool for theories of social evolution is again one and the same waste of time given the false starting point.
In fact, I recommend, insist in fact, given the immense waste of time and energy inflicted by Darwin obsessives, a look at the way the material of the eonic effect and model show most probably in a glimpse of the way social structures evolve and the way that might suggest what a real theory of evolution would look like, and the result is an awesome complexity that current Darwinists cannot fathom. Consider the hypercomplexity of the data we already have, thousands to millions of species forms, body plans, their temporal tracks, over millions to billions of years, etc…You don’t create a science of such complexity with a thesis so idiotic as natural selection.
Let me include here a speculative suspicion of how evolution might work in a real theory of the future: physics contributes its mystery of spooky physics and issues of borderline to space-time. That foundation of a future physics might provide the kind of higher dimensional aspects of evolution missing in the crude idiocy of Darwin. But the core issue is that evolution must be a cosmological process that emerges from planetary constructs and bootstraps the design factors we see in later action. But the larger issues demand not just a take on design, but the questions of consciousness and its related aspects of mind. How could mind evolve? Science so far hasn’t a clue and can’t even study consciousness properly.

Unless scientists can abandon the fallacy of natural selection, the real study of evolution can’t even start. We are dealing with something beyond science at this point: teleology and evolutionary directionality.

The issue of Marxist Darwinism is a tragedy with Stalinist horrors the commentary here seems to omit, and as a leftist critic of Darwinism I find the whole issue of evolution in Marxists an abysmal botch of the whole subject.
But let me read this book….

Source: Red Dynamite by Carl R. Weinberg | Paperback | Cornell University Press

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s