Trust in science? after Darwinism, going going, ….gone

This free book has had thousands of downloads: I think the tide is turning against Darwininism, that is the theory of natural selection, not evolution in general as a fact.

For almost a century the scientific community has been either wilfully deceitful or completely manned by idiots about the theory of Darwin, an almost incredible feat.

Evolution, atheism, the fallacies of darwinism and the rise of mistrust on the right in science in a pandemic

This is an entry, below, to the Evolution and Atheism debate at The debate over theism and atheism is pointless. Dawkins is obsessed and in the process has wrecked the science of biology, along with a whole cohort of strangely mesmerized biologists. When the spell of this delusion lifts people will ask how it is that so many men with PHD’s could fall into such a pitiful naive ‘theory’ based on the statistics of natural selection. What else can people do? The theory of natural selection should provoke mistrust in science. Scientists have gone nuts.

Part of the problem is the obsession over design, and the secular humanist obsession with atheism. The question of design generates paranoia in Dawkins et al. Even the hint of design smells like ‘god’. But that is nonsense. We can take the most extreme version of ‘intelligent’ design and call it true and still that tells us nothing about god. The proponents of ID have their own confusions: they have rightly critiqued Darwinism, but have been unable to really escape their own framework. Again to say evolution/organisms show design is right, but to call that ‘intelligent’ implies something in nature that seems like ‘god’ all over again, OR, as the ID in retreat now say, something ‘intelligent’ in nature. Let’s say they are right, but that is not specific, is about nature not ‘god’ and misuses the predicate ‘intelligent’ for a void we don’t understand.

A massive AI computer at the level of evolution on a planet would explain everything in a minute. I don’t believe that as such but he question of design, as so often is a puzzle for a new branch of math, or a something related.
In many ways the Marx/Hegel debate is the grandfather of the current debate. The debate of Hegel and Marx was a stalemate because Marx ended up in the Darwin camp while Hegel was one of first or else best of the ‘ID’ philosopher/theologians. Note however that ‘Geist’ is the ‘intelligent’ X, but it is not’god’, so what is he talking about?

Whatever the case it is almost urgent get science/biology unstuck here and move on. The confusion over Darwinism has destroyed the reputation of science for millions and not just on the religious right. But the conservative twist is important to understand. Several generations of religious conservatives have been told about the absurdity of Darwin’s theory and now we see the rejection of science in a pandemic.
The reality of design requires explanation, not religious debate. The factor of design simply shows our science is still primitive.

This debate is an echo, intentional or not, of the Dawkins strategy to use Darwinism to prove the case for atheism. The fanaticism of Dawkins is counterproductive and atheists don’t need Darwinian theory to justify atheism. Atheism and theism suffer mutual incoherence and the question of atheism has a slight edge because the conventional theism is almost primitive nonsense. The Old Testament is a remarkable document but after all its thunder bequeaths a conception of god that belongs to the childhood of man. Its status plummets and that has nothing to do with evolution theory. The latter is a set of facts about the appearance of species in deep time but those facts have as yet no theory. The theory of natural selection is almost idiotic: focus on the complexity of an organism and consider the statistical impossibility of chance evolution. Please do it and help to rescue a social disaster in the mass delusion of Darwinism. The issue of atheism stands on its own terms, and challenges the childish myths of ‘god’. The connection with evolution one way or the other is not there.

article referenced in ‘retake on Lewontin’…//Richard Lewontin: Demolition Man of the Modern Synthesis –

Instead of extolling Darwin’s theory as the revealed mechanism for uncovering life’s mysteries, Richard Lewontin described it as projection onto the natural world of the ideology of the Victorian haut bourgeoisie, the self-proclaimed fittest specimens in their own struggle for existence. More

Source: Richard Lewontin: Demolition Man of the Modern Synthesis –

    retake on Lewontin

I think I will withdraw this post soon after an interesting article in Counterpunch by Stuart Newman.
But I am unclear about this group of people including SJ Gould: they were either reticent and hence misleading, or maybe we have succeeded and everyone is changing their story and/or sticking to their story which apparently implied but did not actually say that natural selection was false. The classic spandrels piece clearly implies a problem with natural selection but is confusing in its overall discussion. All this is long ago, and as academic professionals these critics were in a dangerous position talking from two sides of the mouth, at least with the nerve to broach a problem with Darwinism (as far as I can make out).

Men like Lewontin must surely have known that their position was fallacious. The deception is monumental. The left has to set the record straight, and move on. It seems sad that Lewontin and his ci…

Source:    We can’t honor the memory of Lewontin given the hopeless confusion created around evolution, by Marx first…. – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The two don’t belong together…//Einstein and Darwin: A tale of two theories

The answer here as readers here know is that Einstein did physics, a real science, while Darwin was mired in pseudl-science…

Why do Darwin’s theories on the origin of species, put forth in 1859, hold a status so different from that of Einstein’s theories on relativity, published between 1905 and 1916? Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium and co-author of the book “Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution,” reflected on that question during a recent interview at the University of Washington.

Source: Einstein and Darwin: A tale of two theories

Darwininism, a tragedy of science?

These two posts are too seemingly arcane for most readers at first, but that is to be expected, the ideas are not familiar. You learn all this in no time. The real problem is that because the pseudo-science of Darwinism controls public thought and discourse on evolution, new ideas of evolution can never find a hearing.
It is hard to believe that the age of Big Science has betrayed us and is content to enforce an ideology.
Darwinism has multiple false uses:
it is good cover for psychopaths to justify ruthlessness
it is good cover for capitalists to justify economic competition
it is being used to promote a perverted version of secular humanism
What else?
it has promoted the tactics of the Big Lie, using science.

But I think in reality is most biologists are simply too untelligentt to conduct their own subject.
But then the same would be true of physicists who are hyperintelligent,supposedly, but unable to
get out of the Darwin rut. The answer is they are like savants with physics but otherwise idiots.

Darwin suffered ideological bias, no doubt, but he was unable to think through his subject
which many have suspected he got from Wallace who used natural selection as a idea or placeholder to help him
understand the fact of evolution. After that he moved on swiftly beyond selectionism.
But Darwin and generations of idiots were caught in a rapidly consolidating public ideology
that is going to sink science’s reputation once the reality has sunk in.

Let us note again the way evolution appears at our divide (system action) and shows us several
initial thinkers: the teleomachinists, and Lamarck whose instinctive first attempt at evolution
basically go it right, though in a somewhat inchoate form

So in our model we see system action generating the innovation of evolution thinking and the free agency
making a mess of the whole thing.

   We can’t honor the memory of Lewontin given the hopeless confusion created around evolution, by Marx first….

Men like Lewontin must surely have known that their position was fallacious. The deception is monumental. The left has to set the record straight, and move on.

It seems sad that Lewontin and his circle, for all their preaching about ideology were stuck in the selectionist Darwinism rut. Richard Lewontin, who died aged 92 recently, was one of the most tale…

Source: Richard Lewontin—the Marxist geneticist – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Darwin’s Genie: Misapplied Natural Selection Continues 

The left has been left behind by its own confusion in the usual blanket dogmatism about Darwin’s theory and the refusal/inability to resolve the simple fallacies surrounding Darwinism. This is a blog on the left, but we end up citing commonsense about evolution from a right wing website which had deliberately outdone the left by offering better information. There a lingering creationist perspective but as here they have done something that left is too paralyzed to do.

Historical Blunders

Critics of the Origin of Species immediately pounced on Darwin’s fallacious analogy of selective breeding with his new notion of natural selection. The former is done by people with minds acting with foresight toward a goal, they pointed out; the latter is supposed to be blind and unguided. Nevertheless, Darwin’s disciples ever since have played fast and loose with natural selection, applying it in situations where it doesn’t belong, without regard to any human intelligence involved. A recent example appeared a PNAS special issue about economics. In their introductory article to the series, Simon A. Levin and Andrew W. Lo praise Darwin as they repeat his blunder of flawed analogical reasoning.

Source: Darwin’s Genie: Misapplied Natural Selection Continues | Evolution News

 Darwinism vs ‘evolution’ and cancel culture

This could have been a great article if it could get straight on Darwinism. The Scopes Trial was a strange moment that everyone has misunderstood. But the issue was evolution and Darrow had an easy victory when the real debate (perhaps Darrow was genuinely confused) was over the issue of natural selection. This article protests disinformation, but while issue of evolution is clear empirically, the question of the mechanism of natural selection is either deliberate disinfo or severe ignorance for most of secular culture under the tent of cancel culture on Darwin’s ‘theory’. Check out blogs like Uncommon Descent: the religious right has repented and now has an edge over the brainwashed secular humanists as religious Darwin cultists.

Source: Experts beware: America may be headed for a Scopes moment –