Re: Think Again: Charlie Darwin's angels
Feb 08, 2006 07:41 PM
Here's an interesting commentary with reference to the ongoing controversy
between Intelligent design and scientific evolution or Darwinism. I wonder
whether my "unscientific" (since, non "falsifiable" - using that method) ABC
theory could effectively counter both sides of this argument (since they also rely
on unprovable premises) and give them both a common ground of agreement that
plugs all the holes in Darwin's theories, and knocks the religious
creationists personal God into a cocked hat?
In a message dated 1/17/06 7:18:33 AM, email@example.com writes:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Odin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
> Subject: THINK AGAIN: CHARLIE DARWIN'S ANGELS
> JPost.com » Columns » Article
> Jan. 16, 2006
> THINK AGAIN: CHARLIE DARWIN'S ANGELS
> By Jonathan Rosenblum
> A federal district court judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month that a
> few brief paragraphs read to schoolchildren informing them that there
> are holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution and that an alternative
> theory of Intelligent Design exists violated the US Constitution's
> establishment clause. Judge John Jones did not consider, however,
> whether Darwinism might itself be a form of religion, or
> anti-religion, based largely on a priori assumptions.
> In the apt phrase of Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson, Darwinism
> is the "creation story of scientific naturalism" - the doctrine that
> everything can be explained by natural, material forces.
> For tactical reasons, Darwin's scientific supporters often prefer to
> minimize the clash between traditional religion and the Darwinian
> vision of all life developing via trillions of random micro-mutations
> sifted by natural selection. Many, however, candidly admit that Darwin
> leaves no room in human affairs for God.
> Darwinian evolution, writes Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, makes
> it possible "to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> For George Gaylord Simpson, Darwin shows that "man is the result of a
> purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."
> Darwin's mechanistic universe establishes further, according to
> Cornell's William Provine, that there are "no moral or ethical
> Yet, as the brochure for the British Museum of Natural History's 1981
> exhibit on Darwin noted, "evolution by natural selection is not
> strictly speaking scientific because it is established by logical
> deduction rather than empirical demonstration." When the museum's
> chief paleontologist Colin Patterson asked the members of a graduate
> seminar in evolutionary morphology at the University of Chicago to
> tell him just one thing that they knew to be true about Darwinian
> evolution, based on empirical evidence, the result was a long and
> embarrassed silence.
> Karl Popper famously DEFINED A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AS
> ONE THAT CAN BE FALSIFIED.
> When Einstein propounded his General Theory of Relativity,
> for instance, he made a series of bold predictions based on the
> By contrast, Darwinists proceed by assuming the truth of the theory
> and then seeking empirical support.
> Studies of the fossil record that fail to buttress the theory are deemed
> "failures" and never published.
> The search for Darwinian common "ancestors," according to Gareth
> Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History, proceeds on the
> assumption that those ancestors exist and then selecting the most
> likely candidates.
> The mechanism by which nature is alleged to have fashioned a single
> ancestor into both whales and man has never been observed. Indeed, its
> existence is based on a wild extrapolation from the commonplace
> observation that within a single species different traits provide a
> survival advantage in certain circumstances - e.g., black moths fare
> better vis-a-vis predators against a sooty backdrop and light moths do
> better in a clean environment. That's a long way from creating new
> Nor can Darwinists explain how complex systems, such as human sight,
> none of whose component parts would alone provide any advantage, could
> have come into being by a long series of micro-mutations. The best
> Darwinists can offer in response are what Harvard professors Stephen
> Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin call "just-so" stories about how each
> of the postulated (but never observed) changes in each part of the
> system conferred some advantage.
> FACED WITH these challenges, the Darwinist response is largely
> confined to rhetorical efforts to shut up the questioner: "You're
> advocating specific creation" or "What's your alternative?" The latter
> question, Philip Johnson notes in his invaluable DARWIN ON TRIAL, is
> like telling a criminal defendant he can't offer an alibi until he can
> produce the perpetrator. And the force of the question derives
> exclusively from the fact that all elements of design have been ruled
> out of consideration a priori, as failing to conform to scientific
> The fossil record fails to provide evidence of the millions of
> transitional species that Darwin's theory assumes have existed. Their
> absence, writes Stephen Jay Gould, is the "trade secret of
> paleontology." The fossil record is largely one of species and groups
> of species coming into existence fully formed, remaining unchanged
> throughout their history, and becoming extinct by virtue of some great
> catastrophe, not because they were replaced by better-adapted
> descendants. Nor, according to paleontologist Stephen Stanley, does
> the fossil record provide a single example of "major morphological
> Admits Niles Eldridge: "We paleontologists have said that the history
> of life supports the story of gradual adoptive change, all the while
> knowing that it does not."
> Faced with the poor fit between the empirical facts and Darwin's
> theory, scientists face the unpalatable choice between maintaining the
> theory, despite its poor fit with the observed facts, or introducing
> the types of major leaps, or "saltations," that Darwin rejected as
> incompatible with his theory. Those leaps, whether in the form of
> geneticist Richard Goldschmidt's hypothesis of stable macro-mutations,
> or Otto Schindewolf's suggestion that the first bird hatched from a
> reptile egg, or Eldridge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium,
> are, as Darwin recognized, as supernatural as God's hand. Worse, as
> Eldridge puts it, they require the "embrace of a rather dubious set of
> biological propositions."
> Even if Darwinian theory were in better shape than it is, the
> scientific naturalists' project of eliminating all elements of design
> from nature would still founder ON THE CREATION OF LIFE ITSELF.
> Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle once compared the chances of forming
> the simplest one-cell bacterium from pre-biotic soup as roughly
> equivalent to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and
> producing a Boeing 747. Even a one-cell organism makes a spaceship
> look low-tech by comparison.
> Hoyle also discovered that carbon, the basis of all organic life,
> could have only been fashioned in the original solar furnace because
> of the perfect nuclear resonance between two sets of simpler elements.
> His conclusion: "[A] superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well
> as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth
> speaking about in nature."
> IT IS TIME TO STOP TEACHING OUR CHILDREN THAT SCIENCE HAS ANSWERED ALL THE
> QUESTIONS AND ELIMINATED GOD FROM THE COSMOS.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application