The puzzle of Darwinism is the simplicity of the error and the failure even of experts in statistics to see the problem…The statistics of natural selection is so clear and transparent that it leaves a puzzle in its wake: how could so many have remained frozen in this fallacy? Fred Hoyle was one of the few really good scientists to expose the obvious fallacy but to no avail. Even Wikipedia is party to the deception with an entry on ‘Hoyle’s Fallacy’ ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado), a sophistical entry so fallaciously conformist that I could never again take this encyclopedia seriously again. Such deceptions work: the many who grasp the problem (not a few in the science field) are instantly ostracized as the many submit to the propaganda. Hoyle’s argument about the implausibility of natural selection as a driver of evolution is completely obvious and yet as in the tale of the Emperor with no clothes the public has been persuaded as even the scientific community remains silent. I suspect that most scientists suddenly snap out of the strange delusion but say nothing. So much for science.
The stance of Dawkins has been pernicious here: he is absolutely obsessed with his atheism and clutches at the natural selection argument in terror that evolution could be non-random, chattering teeth. But if evolution is non-random, so what? It does not follow that we can infer divinity behind nature. First and foremost because you can’t define god. Take out a piece of paper and define god and then show how non-random evolution proves the ‘existence’ of such. You won’t succeed. But many monotheists will think the argument valid. But it is not. The second reason is that god concepts historically are too primitive to be used in philosophy and too metaphysical in a Kantian sense to escape antinomial confusion. Let’s be clear, the ‘footprint of Crusoe’ is a design context: we infer a human is present. The whole situation with Friday’s footprint is a design case: we naturally infer the existence of a human. But such logic however cogent in ordinary situations can’t be generalized to cosmic theology. First, ‘god’ and ‘existence’ don’t match: if god existed (in space-time) it/he wouldn’t be ‘god’. God must be beyond existence which means we can’t predicate space-time physics to ‘god’. The whole morass is incoherent and can’t be subjected to Darwinian thinking. The same is true for ‘design’ thinking. Review the history of monotheism: it was a design argument par excellence and yet looking backward see the way the whole question of design by ignoring the Kantian limits of metaphysics became pernicious. It seems logical to infer mind in nature given evidence of design. But the inference is not science or logically established with a proof, and the distinction of ‘nature’ and ‘god’ still remains, further compounding confusion. The further reason is that you must be constructivist and explicitly define that ‘other’ you have egregious declared to exist after a simplistic and basically pagan version of a divinity. Ironically pagan versions of ‘divinities’ are not subject to the same skepticism, superstition though they be.
Let’s recall that the ancient Israelites originally forbade references to ‘god’, reversing mention to a glyph or token, IHVH. That soon degenerated into the pop theism that has cursed religion ever since.
So we should not consigned to evolutionary understanding with the stupidity of random evolution via natural selection. Science may never really recover from so much muddle, if not actually deception.
And it is so easy to take a sane approach to ‘evolution’: we the empirical reality of evolution in deep time, but so far its mechanisms elude us. The design factor in evolution is clear, but it has no theological implications.
Meanwhile Hoyle got it basically right: probability makes natural selection extremely unlikely
This is hardly anything we didn’t know twenty years ago, and yet nothing changes. The design argument is somehow transparent but the proponents of ID (intelligent design) have spoiled their c…