Reviewer: When Darwin’s idea is discredited, many sub-cults will be discredited too
| December 5, 2011 | Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News |
In A Eulogy for “Selective Death” (New Oxford Review, November 2011), Terry Scambray reviews Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini’s What Darwin Got Wrong:
Modernism is built on Charles Darwin’s idea that the world made itself. So when Darwin’s idea is discredited, the materialist and reductionist foundations of Marxism, Freudianism, and atheistic humanism will be discredited too, along with their various sub-cults like multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, postmodernism, and so on. In a word, if Darwin is wrong, modernism is reduced to a faith position. Thus, the so-called Darwin wars are not a parochial sideshow between biblical fundamentalists and science, but are a fundamental controversy in the profound sense of the word.
Though this may be news to many, the truth is that natural selection has been discredited at least since Darwin’s time. No less than Thomas Huxley, for one, told Darwin to avoid relying on natural selection as the engine of evolution.
But it didn’t matter, because Darwinism was never of any value in science. It was of value for educating generations in folk materialism.
Apparently though, it is permissible when someone like Noam Chomsky admits that Darwinism is more philosophy than science. But when someone with a theistic view makes the same point, he is ruled out of line.
Of course, because Johnson was a critic, and Chomsky was attempting to rescue a shred of integrity as a thinker by peeping out a little acknowledgment of the fact that no honest person can really deny. Just as Karl Popper did.
And it all works for them because the damage is still done, just as they desire it to be, but they are not assaulted by trolls and they imagine they have achieved some dignity.
See also: Look out, ghosts in the machine! That guy over there has a vacuum cleaner
Jerry Fodor shows why Dawkins is wrong in saying “We must believe Darwinism”
8 Responses to Reviewer: When Darwin’s idea is discredited, many sub-cults will be discredited too
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jerry Fodor? and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini had a particular comment in their book, ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’, that led to revealing some very interesting insights to me.
i.e. there is a mysterious ‘higher dimensional’ component to life:
Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for ‘random’ Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this ‘four dimensional scaling’ of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional ‘expectation’ for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an ‘emergent’ property of the 3-D material realm.,,,
i.e.
And indeed, a higher dimensional ‘transcendent component’ to life has now been found in life on a massive scale;
Quantum Action confirmed in DNA by direct observational research here;
further notes:
Here’s another measure for quantum information in protein structures:
The preceding is solid confirmation that far more complex information resides in proteins than meets the eye, for the calculus equations used for ‘cruise control’, that must somehow reside within the quantum information that is ‘constraining’ the entire protein structure to its ‘normal’ state, is anything but ‘simple classical information’. For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control along a entire protein structure, please see this following site:
It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism’s inability to explain this ‘transcendent quantum effect’ adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a ‘living soul’ for man that lives past the death of his body.
Moreover quantum information is found to be ‘conserved’;
Does the fact that quantum information, which cannot be created nor destroyed, is found in molecular biology, at such a foundational level and on such a massive scale, provide conclusive proof for the ‘living soul’ of man??? Well maybe not ‘conclusive proof’, all by itself, in the strictest sense of the notion, but it certainly makes the question ‘Does man have a living soul?’ far more integrated to how reality itself is found to be structured!
music and verse:
Evolutionary biology will still be going strong long after Fodor has been forgotten and long after Chomskian linguistics has lost its legitimacy. And creationists will still be using the term “Darwinism” for Evolutionary biology, because they see that as an effective smear.
I notice that you failed to quote this bit from the review:
‘Evolutionary biology will still be going strong long after Fodor has been forgotten’
If anything that is a sad testimony to the dogmatic deceitfulness of atheistic neo-Darwinists, and the gullibility of the general public to tolerate such pseudo-scientific tripe from them, than it is for any truthfulness of evidence to be found for biology in the neo-Darwinian framework itself!!
[quote]Evolutionary biology will still be going strong long after Fodor has been forgotten and long after Chomskian linguistics has lost its legitimacy. And creationists will still be using the term “Darwinism” for Evolutionary biology, because they see that as an effective smear.[/quote]
And yet another “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” comment from a darwinist.
“evolution’ ( common descent) and (uncommon descent) are really both part of creation. and is explained in the:
Patterns of Creation
This is an idea that one life was created,.. from that the DNA was slightly modified, then another animal was created from that. After all if your going to make millions of animals why would start from scratch every time. Computer programmer’s do that today. Since most of the DNA is building the same parts, like muscle tissue, bones, teeth, and other organs, why redo all of that. Also could a creator actually breed animals to bring out certain traits. Humans do that today, and have for years?
But is this just an idea?
It does explain why there is a pattern of decent in life.
Is this just speculation on my part?
Well in the creation accounts, the creator actually said he did this.
This is the account of Adam and Eve. Eve was created from the rib of Adam, not just DNA was taken but bone tissue and muscle tissue and flesh. Using this statement by the creator, is he telling us that animals could also have been created by this method. That also means that vestiges of history in generations past would be included in that process. The evidence of line of descent that scientists find in biological and fossil evidence. So do ‘evolutionary’ theories, really come from Creative Patterns. The idea that as one life was created then other was created from that DNA with vestiges, of history of the preceding animal. This shows the efficiency of creation.
This example is from the account of Eve being created, from Adam, by removing DNA, bone, blood and muscle tissue. This same technique if used on populations of animals, would retain history, of that animal, as populations over time.
The evidence we have say that adaptations , breeding , natural selection and mutations do not make new kinds of life, but just allow for a variety of dogs , for example.
We see in fossil records, and in biology, a similar line of descent. But ‘evolution’ is impossible from the evidence we have. ‘Evolutionary ‘ scientists assumed that one came from another naturally. But from the example of the Creator, with Adam and Eve, we have the president of building new life from existing life.
Think of the consequences of that.
This also means that neither common descent nor uncommon descent are totally accurate, but it really is a combination of both,through creation.
It doesn’t take much for Chomsky to say something critical of evolution. He’s been opposed to evolutionary thinking since the beginning of his career.
Every form of evolution, from learning to Adam Smith and capitalism to language learning.
He’s always been in favor of central planning and command economies.