Darwinism validated not by evidence but “by simplistic games models borrowed from 1940s economics”

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 25, 2016

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

COSMOSAPIENS: Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe by John Hands is out 24 November 2016 (Duckworth, £16.99) From John Hands at Science Focus:

At a landmark international conference recently [7-9 November] organised by the Royal Society and the British Academy, several speakers called for a revision of the theory of biological evolution that has been largely unquestioned in the UK and the USA for around 70 years.

This paradigm – a combination of Darwinism, population genetics, and what Francis Crick called the central dogma of evolutionary biology – is known as NeoDarwinism, or the Modern Synthesis. Popularised by Richard Dawkins in his bestselling 1976 book The Selfish Gene, it is a statistical model validated not by observation or experiment, but by simplistic games models borrowed from 1940s economics.

Those speakers drew attention to several empirically supported mechanisms, discussed along with others in COSMOSAPIENS Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe. Some of these were only identified recently, but others have been known for many years and were ignored, dismissed and even suppressed by the Anglo-American biology establishment who had come to treat NeoDarwinism as an article of faith. More.

Hands is promoting his new book, Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe. We’ll see how that cooks.

But so now, what about the Royal Society trying to act as innocuously as possible at the recent evolution meet?

They boast that Isaac Newton one of their first published authors and all that? But who are they kidding? Their misplaced prestige today is a recipe for mediocrity.

If the RS cannot sponsor an honest and open meeting on what’s changed in our understanding of evolution since Dawkins and Gould were duking it out in the early ‘90s, they are not really in charge. Then who is? Darwin’s tax burdens?

And what about the Templeton funding for further meetings? Templeton’s involvement creates the distinct impression that the objections of the newer evolutionary theorists are principally religious in some sense. That’s clearly incorrect but it provides a way of nullifying the objections and the objectors together.

Of course, the problem is still here and will grow, along with the numbers of Darwin profs and dull science teachers.

Researchers must decide if they want progress or just harmony with colleagues.

See also: Royal Society Meet: No “fisticuffs”; serious questions smothered instead Darwinism is now somewhat like multi-party political scandals: The failures are well-documented but the creed is beyond evaluation by evidence-based reasoning or remedy via reform. Eventually, something happens.

Suzan Mazur: Amazing that the Royal Society meeting happened at all The main goal of Darwin’s cronies will be to see that nothing like it ever happens again.

and

Here, alas, is a throng of women in science who will NOT be the next Lynn Margulis

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BA -- thanks very much! I was very interested in his analysis of what is meant by fitnessSilver Asiatic_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

SA, Dr. Lönnig e-mailed me good link(s)
Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: 2),,, a scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable, that is, there should be criteria according to which a hypothesis can be disproved and thus be rejected as false. As to the origin of species, Darwin had asserted that evolution proceeds by “infinitesimally small inherited variations”, “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties” and “insensibly fine steps”, “for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps”. This is also the credo of most modern evolutionists (neo-Darwinians) and, in principle, even of the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory (details are given in the books mentioned above). However, the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of paleontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet any scientific proof against neo-Darwinism is principally rejected by its adherents, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.,,, 7) Do you think there is a Darwinist hold in the world of science that keeps giving silent warnings to all the scientists to stay loyal to evolutionary ideas? Definitely yes, as I myself had to experience (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances? 8) Are there many scientists like yourself who dare to challenge evolutionary ideas? I know many who avoid these questions altogether in order not to jeopardise their career, but most of them simply haven’t heard that there are valid scientific objections against Neo-Darwinism. http://archive.is/rDXfq
And this is the second article in Diplomacy Post
Lönnig: Complex systems in nature point to an intelligent origin for life - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Quite possibly, his most controversial book is a curious one called ‘the Max-Planck Affair’ Which Never Happened’: “…this is a book on one German Evolutionary Group(s), which – absurdly in the name of science – do almost everything they can to suppress in the public all kinds of well-founded scientific criticism against neo- Darwinism or “the modern synthesis“.,,, https://web.archive.org/web/20160401074635/http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/wolf-ekkehard-lonnig-complex-systems-in-biology-overwhelmingly-point-to-an-intelligent-origin-of-living-beings/
bornagain77_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Bob, There is a ruling authority which is a community of people who grant and support various levels of power within it. At the top are academic institutions which establish standards by which science and scientists are judged. It also includes the various "spokespersons for evolution". You could take a look at the conference links you posted (I think one of those is dead). Who organizes the conference? Who decides which evolutionists are invited and which are not? In the U.S. the National Academy of Sciences or the National Center for Science Education come to mind as authorities. They try to exert as much control as possible. But ok, if there's no real authority (I'm willing to accept that), then evolution is whatever we want it to be. The same goes for science. ID is science. I said it, therefore it is. Actually, I wish your view was correct here. Nobody could go around saying "that's not what evolution is", or "ID is not science" as if those were authoritative statements and not merely opinions, the same as any other opinion.Silver Asiatic_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

SA - if there is a "ruling authority" (rather than a community, members of whom have varying amounts of power), then please point out these "specific people" to me. I'd love to meet them.Bob O'H_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Thanks SA, could not find a good link. e-mailed Dr. Lönnig for good link or copy of paper. But I did find this: Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig http://www.weloennig.de/internetlibrary.htmlbornagain77_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

BA77's references in #9 show it (BA your dippost.com link is dead). But how could it be illegal to teach ID in schools? Someone made that happen. Some group of people support that decision.
Moreover, the list of lawsuits filed by the Darwin lobby goes on and on: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, Hurst v. Newman, Freiler v. Tangipahoa, Edwards v. Aguillard
Silver Asiatic_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Bob
SA – even then nobody is “in charge”. Yes, there are power structures, so some people make decisions that affect the way evolutionary biology evolves. But there’s no individual or group of people that hands down edicts about these decisions.
Ok, there are power structures and the people who built those structures and are given authority from them, make decisions that shape what evolutionary biology is. It is an academic and professional community which hires and fires people. They give credentials and withdraw them. They include what they like and exclude what they don't like. They create, maintain, audit and enforce the codes, ideas and attitudes that are the evolutionary-science culture today. It's a specific community of people, with its own celebrities and power structure of authority. If you want to say "nobody is in charge" of all of that, I think you're downplaying the very real presence of a ruling-authority that holds and wields power in support of accepted views. It's a specific group of people who declare what is acceptable and what is not.Silver Asiatic_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Michael Egnor Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God. But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines. I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor. - Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html How the Scientific "Consensus" on Darwinism Is Maintained - David Klinghoffer - September 30, 2014 Excerpt: how it is that a scientist gets to evangelize for atheism at one public university while another at a different public university, Ball State physicist Eric Hedin, gets censured and silenced merely for apprising students of the existence of books offering scientific evidence for intelligent design. Hedin is well liked by his students according to RateMyProfessors.com, and makes an interesting comparison to David Barash who gets complaints about how he is "definitely an atheist and has an agenda to push," "tries to throw dirt on those who believe in anything other than his 'marvelous' theories," has a "clear agenda to push, as he's always rambling off topic about how biology proves that God doesn't exist." Barash even publishes his sermon notes in the New York Times so no one can miss what he's doing in his classroom, and that is just fine as far as I can tell with the administration across town here in Seattle at the University of Washington. It cannot be repeated too often that this is how the scientific "consensus" on Darwinism theory is maintained: one side in the controversy is coddled, the other intimidated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/at_the_universi090151.html On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“ ,,, “As I myself had to experience [that] (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?“ http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/wolf-ekkehard-lonnig-complex-systems-in-biology-overwhelmingly-point-to-an-intelligent-origin-of-living-beings/ per Nancy Percy: The microbiologist, Kas Thomas, who wrote the article expressing doubts about Darwinian theory (posted below) is shocked, shocked that he is being vilified by Darwinists: " I am not a creationist, and yet now I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of scorn born of dogma — scientific dogma. I don’t know why it should surprise me to find there are bullies on all sides of this issue. Until now, I stupidly thought scientific minds were more tolerant and less bullying than religious thinkers. The comments here show the truth. There are closed-minded, intolerant bullies on both sides. “Bully” meaning someone who is not content to leave one well-reasoned comment, then move on; someone who has to keep leaving more and more comments, using the most vitriolic language, simply because they can’t get their way.... It’s pretty clear who the bullies are here. I must say I’m shocked at the degree of intolerance and disrespect shown in some of these comments by Darwinists, who in many cases (it turns out) are anything but open-minded, tolerant, or reasonable. The comments speak for themselves. As I say, it’s clear who the bullies are." Here's the original article again: http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-trouble-with-darwin Darwinian Philosophy: "Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose" - Casey Luskin - August, 2012 Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/blind_darwinian063311.html Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin October 8, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html
bornagain77_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

SA - even then nobody is "in charge". Yes, there are power structures, so some people make decisions that affect the way evolutionary biology evolves. But there's no individual or group of people that hands down edicts about these decisions.Bob O'H_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Nobody is in charge of evolutionary biology, until it comes to peer review, tenure or finding a job.Silver Asiatic_{November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

If Hands believes "Darwinism" constitutes the whole or even the core of current evolutionary biology then he is attacking a strawman. It may sell books but it contributes little to science.Seversky_{November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

If the RS cannot sponsor an honest and open meeting on what’s changed in our understanding of evolution since Dawkins and Gould were duking it out in the early ‘90s, they are not really in charge. Then who is? Darwin’s tax burdens?
What an odd comment. As Bob O'Hare noted, the Royal Society is not "in charge" of evolutionary biology or any other field in science. Individual scientists or groups may feel threatened by new ideas, that is human nature, but one of the purposes of the Society is to foster science not suppress it. If the paradigm shift that Susan Mazur anticipated did not materialize, perhaps it was because there is no need for one as yet. Perhaps evolutionary biology is moving along quite nicely without one.Seversky_{November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary Biologists are our modern day Alchemists. Trying to turn dirt into consciousness. The field will disappear from University study eventually. Oh well.ppolish_{November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

a few more notes on the bullying tactics of Darwinists:
While Ranting about "Quote Mining" in "Creationists Texts," Paper in Scientific Journal Misquotes and Misrepresents Pro-ID Article - Casey Luskin - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: These following two articles, (published by people with backgrounds in the field of rhetoric, writing in journals dedicated to studying science communication), discuss how evolutionists seek to marginalize dissenters with ridicule and incendiary rhetoric, rather than meeting us head-on with arguments and evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/while_ranting_a094851.html
In the following article, Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:
Anti-ID Philosopher: "Ad hominem" Arguments "Justified" When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents - Casey Luskin - June 4, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/anti-id_philoso060381.html
Moreover if intimidation does not work, many times Darwinists resort to outright censorship:
ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe - September 22, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/id-theorist-mike-behe-was-refused-a-response-in-microbe/ The Letter that Science Refused to Publish - November 8, 2013 Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin's Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest. See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/the_letter_that078871.html Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey Luskin - August 20, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/censorship_lose075541.html
bornagain77_{November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

as to: "Science doesn’t have people in charge, as such, the organisation and power structures are messier than that." Funny that a 'power structure' that is seemingly so messy turns out to be very consistent at suppressing any dissent of the evidence free pseudo-science that is neo-Darwinian orthodoxy:
“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the top ten cited chemists in the world “Tour signed Discovery's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism years ago when the National Center for Science Education asserted that only a handful of scientists doubt Darwin's theory. Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/detective_colum090401.html Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Slaughter of the Dissidents - Dr. Jerry Bergman - June 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0 A Creationist Interviews Lawrence Krauss - podcast Excerpt: - 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman - 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class - 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution." - 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are. http://radio2458.rssing.com/chan-8944617/all_p2.html
as to this claim:
“100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that “intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”
I found a survey with a total number of Professors in U.S. of 630,000, so, working the percentages out, I found that the numbers, though still a minority, actually did crunch to a little bit over 100,000 professors who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution.bornagain77_{November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

If the RS cannot sponsor an honest and open meeting on what’s changed in our understanding of evolution since Dawkins and Gould were duking it out in the early ‘90s, they are not really in charge. Then who is?
Err, nobody? Science doesn't have people in charge, as such, the organisation and power structures are messier than that. If you want a meeting about what's changed in evolutionary biology, you could attend a meeting of evolutionary biologists, such as Evolution in North America or ESEB in Europe.Bob O'H_{November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply