Home » Cosmology, Evolution, News » Who would have expected Darwinian evolution to come up in The Edge’s list of …

Who would have expected Darwinian evolution to come up in The Edge’s list of …

 

… science ideas ready to be retired, along with the Big Bang  (here at The Edge big thinksite, 174 responses as of today).

At Canada’s National Post, Joseph Brean tells us,

Roger Highfield, a former science journalist now at the U.K.’s National Museum of Science and Industry, wants to retire the idea that evolution is true, not because it is false, but because the dogmatic declaration of its “truth” lures a thinker into a close-minded confidence, unjustified by even the best current science of evolution.

Well, we see that every single day here, of course, and it explains the need for the Censor of the Year contest. Indeed, Darwin’s current most faithful followers are the strongest reason for thinking their theory in need of retirement. Any mediocre biology teacher can read from a textbook approved by the Darwin lobby. Only a gifted teacher would look into the new information about horizontal gene transfer, for example.

Brean’s article mentions but isn’t explicit about the rap against the Big Bang. But its appearance on the list is not a surprise. Many opponents in science are straightforward about their dislike of its theistic implications. The way that is put is, Martin Rees doesn’t think big bangs are “rigorous science,” and Lee Smolin wants to retire the Bang as the first moment in time:

if the big bang was the first moment of time there can be no scientific answer to the question of what chose the laws of nature. This leaves the field open to explanations such as the anthropic multiverse which are unscientific because they call on unobservable collections of other universes and make no predictions by which their hypotheses might be tested and falsified.

More here, searching on “big bang.”

The Guardian picked Max Tegmark’s response as one of the best. His main problem is with infinity. Readers will remember Tegmark from the multi-level multiverses and the theory that consciousness is a material state.)

And the world bangs on.

Hat tip:Timothy Kershner

See also: Science-Fictions-square.gif Science Fictions

 

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Who would have expected Darwinian evolution to come up in The Edge’s list of …

  1. I think the idea of 1+1=2 should be retired. I mean it is true, but maybe it could lure everyone into a close-minded confidence derived from knowing factual stuff. Just my opinion.

  2. Hopefully ID supporters and creationists will take that advice on board and stop referring to the science of evolution as being about the truth. If they want truths then see a mathematician.

  3. Lincoln Phipps, you are confused as there isn’t any science wrt unguided evolution.

  4. Well this is a strange quote,,,

    Roger Highfield, a former science journalist now at the U.K.’s National Museum of Science and Industry, wants to retire the idea that evolution is true, not because it is false, but because the dogmatic declaration of its “truth” lures a thinker into a close-minded confidence, unjustified by even the best current science of evolution.

    ,,, what makes that quote strange is that science is all about testing whether an idea is true or not.,,, Mr Phipps rushes in to supposedly defend the bizarre quote with this statement,,

    Hopefully ID supporters and creationists will take that advice on board and stop referring to the science of evolution as being about the truth. If they want truths then see a mathematician.

    Actually, contrary to Mr. Phipps assertion, it is now known that ‘truth’ cannot be based within mathematics, at least not within mathematical equations specific enough to have counting numbers in them. The reason is because of the Godel’s proof, i.e. the Incompleteness theorem:

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    So as to Mr. Phipps contention,,,,

    If they want truths then see a mathematician.

    Then I suggest, since truth cannot be based in mathematical equations, if people are seeking ‘truth’ then they will have to go higher than mathematics to the One who imparts truthfulness (breathes fire) into mathematical equations in the first place:

    Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382
    1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    John 14:6
    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    Moreover, since Mr. Phipps holds that ‘truth can be found in mathematics, I implore him to show us ‘IDiots’ the exact mathematical demarcation criteria of neo-Darwinism so that we may finally learn how to properly designate real Darwinian science from the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design?

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.” –
    On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: (Gregory) Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

  5. Or if mathematics is not Mr. Phipps cup of tea, and he more of an empiricist, perhaps he can just demonstrate for us that Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection are the way in which species have originated?

    Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – Jan. 2014
    Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.,,,
    Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.,,,
    ,,,the lack of direct evidence for actual random mutations has now reached a stage where the idea needs to be retired.
    There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists,,,
    http://www.edge.org/responses/.....retirement

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Well so much for Random mutations/variations, How about Natural Selection? Can Mr. Phipps demonstration that it is true?

    One insurmountable problem is this:
    “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.”
    Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/

    WOW, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field dimensionally speaking! Moreover, even if it were on the right playing field, Natural Selection is hopelessly blind to the subtle changes it is required to select at the molecular level,,

    The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009
    Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level.
    http://www.bioscience.org/2009.....lltext.htm

    This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video
    http://vimeo.com/35088933

    All of which begs the question, if showing both of the two primary presuppositions of Darwinism to be false cannot falsify Darwinism, exactly what scientific finding can?

    Of note: Intelligent Design does not suffer from such lack of mathematical rigor:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    and Intelligent Design can easily be falsified

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    - Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Moreover ID has positive evidence for its claim that Intelligence, and only Intelligence, can generate functional information/complexity, whereas Darwinism has none:

    Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?”
    per Amazon Description

    Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous effort that went into building the preceding protein:

    Science – Fuz Rana – Unbelievable? Conference 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

    Verse and Music;

    John 1:3
    All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

    Hillsong – Mighty to Save – With Subtitles/Lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ

Leave a Reply