- I think Darwinism and Athiesm are on their way out. Darwinism
is logically unsustainable. I've read a number of books on the subject.
There is no proof that any creature evolved from any other creature.
-
- Here in S.Africa and in Africa in general they like to
take Darwinism and put a political spin on it and try to milk that for
some kind of credit. The kind of lame thing they do is try to make all
of humanity feel indebted to the first humanoids from Africa from whom
all mankind spread. No doubt Africans would like to put a price-tag on
this and "tax" the rest of the planet for all of eternity if
they could.
-
- The earth's dark and distant history is very murky...
and I don't think one simple concept like Darwinism even comes close to
providing the answers. If life and science has taught us anything then
it is this: This world, everything in it, above it and below is - is EXTREMELY
COMPLEX. Therefore, the history of the earth must also be extremely complex.
-
- For example... what makes us think that we are the first
and only sophisticated civilisation to have inhabited this earth in its
4.5 billion year history? Darwinism forces us to think this since Darwinism
needs a lot of time for it to "work" (and even then it still
has flaws). But... if Darwinism is not the answer... then our history may
be even more complex, and other civilisations could have come and gone
in the interim.
-
- Is ancient history really a "straight line"
concept, or is it a road that winds and twists and turns and forks? My
money is on complexity rather than simplicity. Jan]
-
- Intelligence and design
- Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday
-
- The large response to the item about 'Intelligent Design'
only underlines the need for a proper debate about this interesting intellectual
development, here in Britain. This might start with a bit more fairness
and open-mindedness. I was, because I am not a scientist, very cautious
about what I wrote here. I still am. I also didn't give my own view on
the controversy. This can be summarised in the words 'I have no idea who
is right... and nor have they'. Yet many of the responses from Darwinists
were still actively hostile and angry, as if I had said a good deal more
than I actually did.
-
- Let me deal with one aspect of their attack on Professor
Michael Behe and others. There's a great deal talked about how 'ID' is
'pseudoscience' and that there are no articles in support of 'ID' published
in peer-reviewed journals. There's also a lot about how the 'overwhelming
majority' of scientists accept the Darwinist position.
-
- Much of this is not, as it appears to be, objective argument.
It is just subjective use of important-sounding phrases to discredit an
unfashionable idea. First, this technique greatly exaggerates the claims
made by 'ID'. These are basically arguments about probability, which can't
be resolved, and mainly act by widening the area of doubt.
-
- As I tried to say, 'ID' is unlike Darwinism in that is
specifically doesn't seek to offer a general theory of the origin of species.
It is a sceptical current. It says 'there is something in the Darwinist
argument which requires re-examination in the light of knowledge we didn't
have until recently'. Here are a few questions. Since Darwinism is orthodoxy,
on which many careers have been built and continue to prosper, is it likely
that an attack which threatens that orthodoxy is going to be sympathetically
treated by other scientists? That is specially so in Britain, where - as
I understand - academics don't have the security of tenure which people
such as Behe have in the USA.
-
- There's another point in this. Try as I may, struggling
with selfish genes, alleles and the rest, I cannot find any Darwinist argument
which doesn't in the end rely on conjecture, backed up by the argument
that it is the majority view. Well, a majority cannot make a falsehood
true, and all kinds of things have been the majority view, from the idea
that blood didn't circulate to the idea that iron ships would sink (and
the idea that Anthony Blair was a refreshing and brilliant new feature
in British politics). As for majority medical orthodoxies which have been
totally mistaken, someone should write a book about them, as there have
been so many. Unlike Darwinism, these ideas could be - and were - exploded
by experiment and discovery. But Darwinism is all about events that happened
when there was nobody there to witness them. And it is also about events
which - if happening now - are happening too slowly for anyone to live
long enough to see them. It is amazing how many supporters of this theory
cannot see the difference between the micro-evolution of adaptation or
alteration within species, and the far more ambitious developments of macro-evolution,
in my view qualitatively different, which Darwinists believe in.
-
- The fossil record is full of gaps and highly ambiguous.
Species appear and disappear suddenly, which I should have thought would
upset the Darwinist position quite badly, but somehow doesn't.
-
- All I ask is that people keep thinking about this, don't
get frightened of doing so, and don't try to frighten others into orthodoxy,
or to misrepresent opponents' positions.
-
- http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/12/intelligence_an.html
|
