Tag: natural selection

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 academia.edu. 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.

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.

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=darwinism+critique

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

The irrationality of darwinism

Discussing evolution with Darwinists is a strange process. The superstitious belief that natural selection produces the evolution of a species is like religious faith. But in reality, the fact remains that science doesn’t have a shred of evidence of species evolution by natural selection. Let me repeat that, NONE. Note that such evidence would have to stretch over millions of years. You would need an awfully large library for the documentation, which could take a lot of time to read. Stand your ground here and don’t get intimidated by the putdowns in place of argument. For academics, I have to shake my head, what to do. If you dissent you can lose your job. Scientists can’t deal with the issue. It needs outsiders.

https://www.academia.edu/s/75e1d7bd69#comment_868931

There is no evidence that natural selection produced a new species in deep time. None. We can’t observe such a process which can occur over long periods. The term is ‘natural selection’ so I will use that. Let me repeat: biologists have NEVER observed the data required to prove Darwin’s theory. These discussions are caught in what is ether the stupidity or the deception of biologists. The question of statistics haunts the false claims of Darwinists. Random mutations are statistically unlikely in the extreme to generate evolution. Produce the evidence for an actual case. There is none.

The idea that evolution occurs via natural selection and survival of the fittest is laughable, if not tragic, like everything else with homo ‘sapiens’, evolutionary theory is a screw up

The imposition of the Darwin paradigm is a grim reminder of the ideological hypnosis of an ambiguous era of science.
Look at the eonic effect: almost everything of value in world history is generated in the eonic effect’s evolutionary software, while the contribution of man is mostly violent mayhem and abuse of the gifts of real ‘eonic evolution’. How did the whole of science get captured by this nonsense. It is not as if there is evidence here. We don’t have a single example in deep time of a species emerging in this way. In fact we don’t have significant evidence at all. We do have strong evidence of the FACT of evolution, but a theory of how that happened eludes us. It is pity that Marx got taken in here because his first impression was exactly right: ideology. But he must have sensed what would happen if he opposed the theory.

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-world-history-racism-slavery-and-the-modern-transition-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-shows-at-once-the-problem-with-darwinism-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/science-must-urgently-abandon-darwinism-trust-in-science-is-eroding-rapidly/

The idea that evolution occurs via natural selection and survival of the fittest is laughable, if not tragic, like everything else with homo ‘sapiens’, evolutionary theory is a screw up

The imposition of the Darwin paradigm is a grim reminder of the ideological hypnosis of an ambiguous era of science.
Look at the eonic effect: almost everything of value in world history is generated in the eonic effect’s evolutionary software, while the contribution of man is mostly violent mayhem and abuse of the gifts of real ‘eonic evolution’. How did the whole of science get captured by this nonsense. It is not as if there is evidence here. We don’t have a single example in deep time of a species emerging in this way. In fact we don’t have significant evidence at all. We do have strong evidence of the FACT of evolution, but a theory of how that happened eludes us. It is pity that Marx got taken in here because his first impression was exactly right: ideology. But he must have sensed what would happen if he opposed the theory.

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-world-history-racism-slavery-and-the-modern-transition-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/the-eonic-effect-shows-at-once-the-problem-with-darwinism-2/
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/05/21/science-must-urgently-abandon-darwinism-trust-in-science-is-eroding-rapidly/

  The dangers of Darwinian delusion

The scientific community has done an immense disservice to the general community. Against the views of better thinkers the views of Darwin took hold, soon exposed, but then recast as the hard paradigm. We cited Jacques Barzun from the 1940’s noting the problems of theory and then after the paradigm became hardcore and all the figures like Barzun disappeared. Dissent suddenly became a strategy of the religious right, as a menacing cancel culture took hold. Figures like Marx who saw the problem suddenly became converts. Marx should have dissented here and stopped the runaway train. But it didn’t happen.
The ID group in our century appeared in the religious right, and this was often useful critique of the problems of evolution, but the suspicion of theological bias was impossible to escape. And in any case ‘design’, which is resonant in nature, turns into a naturalist question, still unsolved. Theism just doesn’t work here.

Something that shouldn’t have happened did happen and when it collapses people will look back and ask how a whole cadre of professionals could be rigidly mesmerized by a pseudo-science of natural selection. Darwinists have corrupted the thought of a whole civilization, oblivious to the most obvious cautionary double-check. A myth as flimsy as the doctrine of the resurrection took over and created a bizarre religious ‘true belief’ syndrome. The damage done is immense and snowballs into tens of thousands of books written on false assumptions. Almost every profession has been confused here. The scale of the question is on the level of tragedy.
The ‘tough’ guys took over and made the theory into a kind of social Darwinist world view (already present in Darwin) and its connection to economic reasoning was invaluable as propaganda: what the need for ethics if natural selection as violent competition is so central in nature? Wrong again, but good for the economy, if you are a capitalist. The capitalists could care less. It’s good for business, so lie about it.

Darwinists are going to discredit a whole civilization and leave thousands in a state of hopeless confusion. One suspects the hidden control factor is indeed the hidden fiat of capitalist ideology.Too bad, fellows, if you cheat at science for ideological reasons, the result is….aha, not science

Those who see this boat heading toward the falls have learned the hard way that the cult believers are beyond reach. That Darwinism upholds a very drastic view with no evidence is a paradox of bad science, really bad science. It should be a matter of a thirty second warning the theory has no evidence, all in vein.

Source: Asked, why did you become a Darwin critic? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The baffling persistence of Darwinism…//Fred Hoyle did this fifty years ago…

The persistence of selectionist Darwinism is almost incredible and the damage done is hard to repair. But biologists are constantly producing new sophistries that the non-specialist can’t evaluate.
The whole game is pointless and yet the science community is determined to safeguard their equivalent of the doctrine of the resurrection as a public propaganda. The whole thing smacks of economic ideology as Social Darwinism and that again is a check against the reputation of and trust in science.

Behe dismantles the fundamental claim of evolutionary theory that mutations and natural selection naturally drive life toward greater complexity as new information is constantly generated. In stark…

Source: Fred Hoyle did this fifty years ago…//Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves Topples Foundational Claim of Evolutionary Theory – Darwiniana