The human neck is a mistake of evolution 

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

design is the question, not the answer…//Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design, Thomas, Neil, eBook –

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.

The tragedy inflicted on science by Darwinists. Guess what, scientists can no longer be trusted…

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 and the left’s disgrace

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 that&#821…

Source: A new critique of selectionist darwinism – 1848+: The End(s) of History

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/