Source: picking holes in…Picking Holes in the Concept of Natural Selection | BioScience | Oxford Academic – 1848+: The End(s) of History
We will relist these two books without the garbled review: they are both important works and shows that something is stirring in academia, but I have to wonder if these books had any effect. Guess what the world of academia, as evidenced by the reign of Darwinism. It is an extraordinary record: almost the entire field of biology (in the US, mostly elsewhere) cannot debrief the theory of natural selection, one that as Nagel points out strikes amateurs as obviously wrong and implausible. And yet all the products of the university system are conditioned in a cyrpto-ideological mindset. Some have blamed this on capitalism ideology and the way Darwin’s theory promotes competition and survival of the fittest, also two capitalist favorites. The integrity of science is at risk, but nothing can seem to penetrate the false awareness here.
What Darwin Got Wrong.
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
The academic world has finally produced some critics of Darwin, but as this review shows, the world of biology is so confused the critiques can’t register. The reviewer here becomes so sophistical that he misses the key point: the statistics of natural selection don’t work and the process of evolution requires a different explanation. Such reviews are not trustworthy because they cannot do anything but quibble and cannot in public express doubt about Darwin’s theory These two critiques seem to have blunted themselves, but remain critically important contributions. The overall issue is thus very simple: the statistics of natural selection can’t produce complex biological structures at random.
These two books are by two figures with sufficient prestige to take on the establishment of Darwinism. Continue reading “picking holes in…Picking Holes in the Concept of Natural Selection | BioScience | Oxford Academic”
Reclaiming science for the left is a great idea but the legacy of historical materialism has tended to make scientism dominate along with Darwinism. Marx started with suspicions of Darwin but then closed ranks, suspiciously, around Darwin’s theory as good for his materialist enterprise. The legacy of natural selection in the hands of the Stalinists is a caution to the ideological abuse of science for class genocide. The left should have led the way to the expose of Darwinism, but instead the right has cleverly taken up the expose and the result makes the left look ridiculous.
Writer Kim Stanley Robinson talks to Jacobin about Ministry of the Future and his other books, climate change, and why he thinks the Left should reclaim science as a tool of socialist progress.
Source: Kim Stanley Robinson on Science Fiction and Reclaiming Science for the Left
There is something almost ludicrous, if not grotesque, about the hold of natural selection on scientists, and its associated sectors, here the singularity mythologists–or scientists? While the question of alien life remains unresolved it would seem that it is abundantly present throughout the cosmos. We still don’t know, but we can’t conclude anything on the basis of the pseudo-science of ‘evolution’ based on natural selection. The hold of that theory in the face of almost endless critiques and exposes remains a puzzle of science as we know and a warning that ideology can take hold of core science and corrupt it.
Evolution is a general term, and is not equivalent to ‘evolution by natural selection’. Evolution remains the great unsolved challenge for real science as the question of alien life remains up in the air. But we must suspect that evolution is a teleological process present throughout the cosmos.
Are we alone in the universe? It comes down to whether intelligence is a probable outcome of natural selection, or an improbable fluke. By definition, probable events occur frequently, improbable events occur rarely—or once. Our evolutionary history shows that many key adaptations—not just intelligence, but complex animals, complex cells, photosynthesis, and life itself—were unique, one-off events, and therefore highly improbable. Our evolution may have been like winning the lottery…only far less likely.
Source: Evolution Tells Us We Might Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe
It may or may not be true that the evolution of the neck shows design flaws but to use this argument to defend ‘evolution by natural selection’ is completely wrong. The influence of the Darwinian obsession a la Richard Dawkins extends to the general public in the vast realm of controlled opinion that has made secular thought seem like a hoard of idiots.
Clearly, the human body shows design, it is possible that this could have produced a design flaw but the reality of holistic body evolution by some process with a larger evolutionary design is inescapable and this has no theological conclusions nor any implication of natural selection.
Source: The human neck is a mistake of evolution – Alternet.org
The author has a good critique of Darwinism but then lets the ‘design’ argument talk him into the ‘god conclusion’, the ID guided tour to theological endpoints.
The failure of natural selection does indeed suggest design arguments but those are not theological arguments.
As a long-time critic of the natural selection fallacy I nonetheless think that selectionist evolution tries at least to answer the question ID converts forget: how does nature construct designed objects? If not natural selection, then how? To cop out with sudden ‘god’ conversion is cheating, and that is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is a question that rivals quantum physics in its suspected complexity. And I will betcha that lurking in that is a connection. Let’s trot out ‘spoooky physics’, as a likely suspect. The bootstrap issue is one of the main unknowns of science, and theological escape hatch tactics seem less and less convincing, for the simple reason that ‘god’ thinking belongs to another age. It tends to bug people as ‘religion’ lurks in the background of secular humanism. But that is less and less true.
Those who promote the ‘god’ thesis do however remain unrefuted, but the fact remains that they would have to upgrade their god gibberish to a new and intelligible form. You can’t exclaim ‘hey guys, I give up, god did it’ and then inject the Old Testament tribal ‘god’, a savage hyperdemon still demanding blood sacrifices. C’mon, get with the program here.
A good example here is the work of the atheist Schopenhauer. Why can’t just ditch the ‘god’ mumblers and consider the ‘will’ in nature, sorry, Will in nature, behind evolution? But even there we need specifics.
The issues of science reflect levels of technology and the ‘technology’ of nature as an evolutionary design source remains unsolved because we can’t conceive of machines that have design factors, although they are themselves designed. Theology/natural selection distract from trying to resolve the problem, which admittedly isn’t simple: somehow nature bootstraps a process that can direct evolution over eons and is thus the ‘equivalent’ as abstraction to a factory that can produce species. Once we focus on the actual problem we can at least begin to converge on an answer. We may not realize just how far off we are from answers.
A comment at academia.edu ‘s debate on Evolution and Atheism. It is sad to watch the triumph of idiocy manufactured by bad, or dishonest, ‘science’ education. The failure of natural selection is totally obvious to any statistical analysis, and yet persists as ideology because powerful people enforce it in educational brainwashing mills. I have always thought the reason was the promotion of social Darwinism in public economic ideology. It is ideal for psychopaths who wish a free hand in capitalist competition and ‘dog eat dog’. Sad is the inability of leftists to escape the universal muddle, although Richard Lewontin seems to have known better, but never made his views clear.
No matter how many times you say Darwinism as a theory of evolution has no evidence for its claims: i.e. random mutation and natural selection, people just go into a kind of trance as the brainwashing of thought takes hold. To do science you must have evidence but no one has the evidence for a single species in the large evolving by chance. Confusion arises over what is really microevolution and/or the sloppy usage using the term evolution for, say, Covid molecular mutations, in RNA no less. That does not extend to the large-scale evolution of species, a hypercomplex operation that is still a complete mystery. Google the question and scroll down from the propaganda first page to some serious critiques of the impossibility of random evolution where the odds of producing a single protein by chance are astronomically low, vanishingly low. Look at a strand of molecular structure: the odds of producing a designed structure are so low that there can’t be any debate there. And the improbability multiples across repeated links in any chemical chain. It is hard to see how in a culture where statistics is a hard rigorous discipline anyone could think otherwise.
But figures like Dawkins in their obsession to promote atheism have distorted the whole debate, and worse using their professional power to conduct witch hunts of any professional figure in biology who dissents, a disastrous destruction of science. The design issue seemed once to be connected with creationism, but the god angle is waning more and more. You have to discuss design in evolution andthat has nothing to with creationism…
Guess what, scientists can’t be trusted…
Darwinism is the most blatant source of social Darwinism ideology but the left is oblivious to the issue, taking Marx’s embrace of Darwin at face value. His first reaction was the right one: ‘English ideology’, but he changed his story, did he simply lie? I fear that this has confused the left for generations and led to Stalin’s genocidal version of natural selection. Marxism remains forever suspect here, another reason to move on.
I find this book useful but those in the various camps, secular or religious, still take the issue to be theism versus atheism and that is not the case. I praised this book but in reality that̵…
Source: A new critique of selectionist darwinism – 1848+: The End(s) of History
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.
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.
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