Forget Darwin and Grow Up!

A popular fly-by in synchronous orbit around the Randroid Belt calling itself XRAY recently posted the following on SOLO:

"Oh really, Janet? Gee, then how do you explain that humans share over 95 % of their genes with the chimpanzees and bonobos?"

Gee, I dunno, Xray, how do you explain it?  Why does that automatically prove Darwinian evolution?

Air-conditioners and refrigerators also share over 95% of their parts. To your way of thinking, Xray, I guess the fact of "shared parts" between two things proves that one thing evolved from the other.  But why?

Actually, it proves nothing of the kind, since that fact is also consistent with the scenario that shared technology, i.e., similarity or identity of functional elements between two devices, is simply an efficient way of constructing both entities. It doesn't necessarily prove evolution since it is also consistent with the idea of "commonality of conception."

Note:  To prove Darwinism, you cannot merely point to some fact in nature that you believe is conistent with it.  You must point to some fact of reality that is (1) consistent with your theory, but that is also (2) inconsistent with alternative theories.

For example, the undeniable fact of large gaps in the fossil record conforms to (2) above: that undeniable fact is inconsistent with classical Darwinian notions of slow, constant, gradual, morphological change over long stretches of time. The absence of intermediate forms proves nothing about any alternative scenario, but it does throw doubt on the Darwinian one. 

Of course, taken together with another inconvenient fact inconsistent with Darwinism — that new species in many instances seem to have appeared more or less suddenly, with no evidence of precursors — an honest commitment to the facts of reality might very well demand that we abandon Darwinism to the trash heap of failed scientific theories.

A recent paper in Biological Theory [link] seems to agree:

"The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis"

By David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber

(the phrase "Modern Synthesis" is the historically correct and formal name for what is often called "Neo-Darwinism")

The authors make the following resonant assertion:

"Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope."

We think so, too.  (Though we suspect the Randroid Belt will continue to clutch at this rope until it hangs itself.)


So wave "bye, bye" to Darwin, everyone. It's OK to do so.  We're all grown up now.

Women of the Randroid Belt

I can't believe it!


I found this in a shop for used books and old magazines. It's an NBI publication written by, and for, women of the Randroid Belt. The authors may be gone and forgotten, but their high thoughts and well-honed arguments will live on.


I can't wait to read this!

Pot-Kettle-Black

Seen on SOLO:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8943

A blogger named Xray writes:

Circular reasoning is a fairly frequent fallacy in discussions with ideologists and those holding onto cherished beliefs (both non-secular and secular).

Quite so. Circular reasoning lies at the very foundation of the Darwinian paradigm; a fact criticized numerous times by skeptics of the hypothesis, as well as cited approvingly by its advocates. The difference is that the former believe it undercuts the rest of the hypothesis while the latter believe it's simply "repeating the obvious." As the saying goes, "It's not a bug; it's a feature!"

Xray continues:

If for example you ask a devout believer "What can you provide as evidence that your "holy scripture" is the word of God?" , and the believer replies: "In the first chapter of the holy scripture, it says verbatim: "All that is written here is the word of God", it is circular reasoning because that which the questioner wanted to subject to critical examination (the alleged "truths" in the scripture) is fallaciously presented by the believer as the truth.

Another example would be if we ask a devout Darwinist "Why did some species survive" and the believer replies "Because they were fit!"  And if we further inquire, "Fit? What do you mean by 'fit'? What is the criterion of 'fitness' and by what means can you discern whether or not a given species is, indeed, 'fit'?" If the Faithful Darwinist replies "I know a given species is 'fit' because it survived," then that would be another example of circular reasoning: "survival" is explained by reference to "fitness" and "fitness" is explained by reference to "survival."

Its not a bug, it's a feature! The Darwinian Faithful believe their circular reasoning is justified; their circular reasoning is better than someone else's circular reasoning. But, of course, A is A; circular reasoning is circular reasoning. If such reasoning renders vacuous a claim made on behalf of religion, it renders vacuous a claim made on behalf of Darwinism.