Descent of Man Revisited

9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)

I am both pleased and puzzled by the success of this book with thousands of downloads: published in 2012 using Adobe Lightening Print and created with the remarkable, and for its time revolutionary software put out by Adobe. Among its offering is the remarkable Indesign SW which allows text processing far superior to Microsoft’s Word, itself a remarkable innovation of the computer revolution. But Indesign has all the components of an old-fashioned linotype system in the way it computes spacing with fractional spacing of text. Such technology in the hands of those outside of the academic realm of credentialed idiots was a turning point, although the reign of enforced paradigms and cancel tactics is still alive and well.

The evolution debate is shifting slowly away from the Darwin propaganda machine and the reckoning of the inability of the world of Big Science to stop a false form of pseudo-science from falling into the hands of a corrupt social elite, not the least the realm of social Darwinist ideology is still to come. The reputation of science may never recover.

Descent of Man Revisited

9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)

Descent of Man Revisited

9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)

Descent of Man Revisited

9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)

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. Continue reading “Red Dynamite by Carl R. Weinberg | Paperback “ →

The futility of the Darwin debate and the destruction of science by Darwin propaganda

The tenor of the Darwin debate is acrimonious in a manner that shows neither side can win the debate. But the ID faction can’t give up their obsession with ID/theism, while the scientists (so-called)/biologists cannot grasp the failure of selectionist Darwinism. This situation is dangerous for science. Scientists need to step out of the useless debate and rescue biology from a century of pseudo-science…

Source: Fact-Checking “Professor Dave” on “Darwinism” | Evolution News