Search This Blog

Monday, November 14, 2011

That Darwinism is anti-science is proved by the existent of the NCSE. Darwinism is Paganism and not science.

What shall we call the NCSE?   National Censors of Scientific Evidence?   No Creationists Says Eugenie?   No Credible Scientific Evidence (for Darwinism)?  Nonsensical Cult Supporting Evolution?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` 

The first two parts of this post reveal that Darwinists and the NCSE are afraid of the evidence, want to stifle dissent and bury all evidence concerning origins other than their own fairy tales.   The third article shows that Darwinists, by their illogical and magical thinking, have indeed managed to do precisely what Paul predicted in the Bible almost two thousand years ago.  Some quotes will be blued by me.   All underlining added by me.  The promised Bible verse will be found at the end.

NCSE Takes on Creation Geologists

Posted on October 23, 2011 in Physical Science, Geology, Dating Methods, Origins, Darwin and Evolution, Intelligent Design, Issues, Media, Bible and Theology

"We could solve much of the wrongness problem ... if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right.  That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough.  But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that."-- David H. Freeman, in The Atlantic, November 2010. 

 
The science of geology operates in parallel universes.  There are the mainstream, secular geologists in the Geological Society of America who have complete hegemony in the secular universities, the mainline journals and the secular press.  Then there are the creation geologists, who publish in their own journals; these hardly enter the awareness of the other geologists.  Once in a while, though, like disturbances in the Force, emanations from the creation universe into the secular universe are felt.  The National Center for Science Education has become so alarmed at these emanations that they have warned secular geologists to (1) pay them no attention, and (2) pay attention.

Steve Newton, Programs and Policy Director for the NCSE, portrayed creation geologists as outlandish interlopers at geology conferences.  In his article for New Scientist, Geology will survive creationist undermining,” he described how he visited some of their poster sessions and listened to some of their talks.  He had to admit that they got their degrees from legitimate institutions and knew how to “walk the walk and talk the talk.”  But to really believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and the geological record is explained by Noah’s Flood? Geologists are understandably fuming,” he said.

Newton had a counter-intuitive proposal, though: pay them no attention.  An outright ban would give them reason to claim discrimination, for one thing (and the California Science Center recently learned that can be expensive).  For another, “science is a process,” and most outlandish ideas turn out to be wrong.  “While the exclusion of creationists can pose problems, their inclusion at conferences does little harm,” he said.  “The reputations of scientific organisations are largely unaffected, as few people even notice.”

But Eugenie Scott, founder and Executive Director of the NCSE, thinks people do notice.  That’s why her organization produced a new film about the creationists, “No Dinosaurs in Heaven,” starring her, and is taking it on the road.  Half of the film is about her raft trip down the Grand Canyon to rebut the arguments of creation geologists that the canyon is Exhibit One for the Flood.

The NCSE press release about screenings explains the reason for the film:
“No Dinosaurs in Heaven” is a film essay that examines the hijacking of science education by religious fundamentalists, threatening the separation of church and state and dangerously undermining scientific literacy.  The documentary weaves together two strands: an examination of the problem posed by creationists who earn science education degrees only to advocate anti-scientific beliefs in the classroom; and a visually stunning raft trip down the Grand Canyon, led by Dr. Eugenie Scott, that debunks creationist explanations for its formation. These two strands expose the fallacies in the “debate,” manufactured by anti-science forces, that creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution.

It would be hard to pack any more loaded words into a single paragraph.  Readers can watch the 3-minute trailer of Ms. Scott’s film, produced by Jezebel Productions, at www.nodinos.com.

Jezebel Productions?  Jezebel Productions!  Wahoo!  That tells you all you need to know.  That is one of the worst choices dear Ms. Scott could have ever made for a production company name (here's why).  Look, folks, if you want to float down the Grand Canyon with a bunch of crabby bigots singing “It’s a long way from amphioxus” (10/06/2005), go right ahead.  But many can say from personal experience you will have a lot more fun and personal enrichment from Tom Vail’s creation-based rafting trips, and you will see with your own eyes huge, huge things that had to have been formed rapidly in days, not millions of years.  Visit CanyonMinistries.com and sign up for next summer’s expeditions.  Creation geology will survive Jezebel’s undermining.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eugenie Scott?  Named for Eugenics?   Was she a Jezebel from birth?   No, actually she was a child born of Christian Scientists who has over the years claimed to be a Protestant, a Secular Humanist and then at last a Atheist but still claims a "Spiritual" side.   What kind of spirit that might be I shudder to think.  But she is absolutely one thing for certain - an anti-education censor who leads a group dedicated to censorship.  If you have read 1984 you understand what this kind of thinking represents.   Eugenie Scott wants the Federal Government to be Big Brother and she thinks she is part of the Thought Police.

credit

Eugenics was the bright idea of Darwin's cousin Francis Galton that, in concert with Malthusian propaganda and the Darwinist concept that we evolved from apes and non-caucasians were less evolved, led to Aborigines being killed and skinned and placed in museums and was the excuse for numerous acts of genocide by various tyrants in the 19th and 20th Century.   Darwinists hate to admit their links to Stalin and Hitler and Mao or, for that matter, Jeffery Dahmer but history knows better.  In America it is forgotten that Eugenics led to forced sterilization of minorities and poor and handicapped folks in the pre-WWII era.   In fact the Eugenics crowd praised Hitler in the early days of his reign in Germany and then, after the public began finding out what Hitler was really doing behind the lines the Eugenics organizations laid low and changed names.  To, for instance, the group we call Planned Parenthood.   If genocide is no longer tolerable then the plan changes and abortion on demand is provided instead, primarily in the areas where the poor and the minorities are most often found.  

Also it appears that Scott is very afraid of both ID and Creation Science because she is willing to lie about it and hopes those lies will be believed:

Uncommon Descent is reporting that National Center for Science Education (NCSE) executive director Eugenie Scott has stated in a talk: "You cannot teach evidence against evolution. There have been some court decisions that have talked about this including Kitzmiller, but there has not been a really clean test of this idea of teaching evidence against evolution."

Isn't that convenient for Eugenie Scott that she now claims that the courts have insulated evolution from any form of critique in public schools?

In any case, Dr. Scott is misrepresenting the law. The Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit dealt with the teaching of intelligent design, not teaching scientific evidence against evolution. And even if it had, Judge Jones would have been overruled by a much higher court--the U.S. Supreme Court--which has already ruled that it is legal to teach scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories like evolution. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard, a case that directly dealt with the topic of origins-education in public schools:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 593-594 (1987).)
Eugenie can say whatever she wants but she cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court refuting her claims.

Actually, I've heard secondhand that Eugenie doesn't privately believe it's really illegal to critique evolution. I'm not going to name names, but I've spoken with legal scholars who have collaborated with Darwin lobbyists. They've told me that what Eugenie Scott fears more than anything is an army of teachers who WILL teach the scientific controversy over evolution because she knows that under current law, it's legal to do that. There's a reason why, as Eugenie puts it, "there has not been a really clean test of this idea of teaching evidence against evolution." That's because the NCSE and its allies in the Darwin lobby are afraid to file a lawsuit against a policy that requires or permits scientific critique of evolution because they know they will probably lose that case in court.

After all, if the Darwin lobby feels a policy is unconstitutional, they waste little time in filing lawsuits; it took less than two months for attorneys working with the ACLU to help parents file a lawsuit after the Dover Area School Board passed a policy requiring the teaching of ID. But there have been multiple policies requiring or permitting scientific critique of evolution which have remained on the books for years without any lawsuit. For example:
Texas: Students must "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations . . . including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking," and also "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, including "common ancestry," "natural selection," "mutation," "sudden appearance," the origin of the "complexity of the cell," and the formation of "long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life."

Minnesota: "The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including . . . [the] theory of evolution . . . ."

New Mexico: Students will "critically analyze the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms."

Pennsylvania: "Critically evaluate the status of existing theories (e.g., germ theory of disease, wave theory of light, classification of subatomic particles, theory of evolution, epidemiology of AIDS)."

Missouri: "Identify and analyze current theories that are being questioned, and compare them to new theories that have emerged to challenge older ones (e.g., Theory of Evolution . . . )."

Alabama: "[E]volution by natural selection is a controversial theory . . . . Instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

South Carolina: "Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

Louisiana: Louisiana public schools shall "create and foster an environment...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Mississippi: "No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life."

Kansas: "Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory."

Ohio: "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)"
Each of these policies are still in effect, except for the last two (Kansas's policy was repealed in 2007 after conservatives lost a majority on the State Board of Education, and Ohio's policy was repealed in 2006 after its State Board of Education underwent a similar change). The point is this: each of these policies are (or were) on the books for years without any legal challenge from the Darwin lobby. If Eugenie Scott is correct that it's illegal to teach scientific critiques of Darwinian evolution, why is that?

Darwin lobbyists would love to ban scientific critique of evolution in public schools, so why haven't they filed a lawsuit? It's simple: They aren't confident they would win because they know that current law does NOT make it illegal to teach scientific critiques of evolution in public schools.

What's most distressing here isn't just that Eugenie Scott is misrepresenting the law. It's that in her perfect world, she would apparently prefer that teaching scientific critique of evolution be illegal. What kind of society would we live in if Eugenie Scott and the Darwin lobby had their way, and it was illegal to ask hard questions about scientific theories? Not a good one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice the phrase that Scott uses is "evidence against evolution?"   She uses this no doubt because she knows quite well there is evidence against evolution, hard evidence, convincing evidence, and she is afraid that the public will hear of it and become interested and want to know more.   It reminds me of one of my commenters, who likes to tell me that no one pays attention to my posts and that I do not post any evidence and nothing I write is worth reading and continually asks the same questions and refuses to accept or comprehend the answers.   I think to myself, dude, if I am not accomplishing anything and there is no reason to read my blog and no reason to comment on it, why do YOU do read the blog and comment on it?  

I know why I blog.  Because learning should last a lifetime.   If you quit learning you are beginning to die.   I have learned that Darwinism is untrue and it is artificially propped up by a bunch of religious zealots who hate God or the idea of God.   The idolatry of Darwinism is the shame of the scientific community and will eventually be a black stain on those who promoted it well beyond its expiration date.  How many diseases might be cured had we used the resources wasted on trying to prove the unprovable in an attempt to help mankind?   Why should our tax dollars go to the salary of a bunch of censors like the NCSE?  Why should millions of dollars be wasted on SETI?   While scads of scientists are trying over and over again to overturn a law like Biogenesis there are disorders and syndromes that could use more researchers.


Darwin's Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection's Idolatrous Trap

A major university promoted an annual Diversity Day that featured almost any organization willing to set up a booth. At one booth, a student was given a small carved statue that, he was told, had the power to select his best soulmate from all the girls he’d ever met. He asked how a statue could truly select, but was provided an unsatisfying, unquantifiable, mystical answer.

He then visited the Humanist Club exhibit, where an evolutionist from Princeton University quoted a colleague who said:

Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity.1

Thinking the evolutionist’s words also had a mystical flavor, the student asked what actually does the “selecting.” The evolutionist replied, “Environmental stresses.” The student pointed out that, by definition, “selecting” something implied volition and was presumptive evidence of intelligence. So how could selection by environmental stresses be any more tangible than selection by the statue in his pocket? The professor fired back that “selection” in this case was obviously just a figure of speech.

By coincidence, a scientific creationist speaking at the adjacent booth said, “Beneficial mutations in bacteria are more likely to have phenotypic impacts, or changes to observable characteristics, and undergo stronger positive selection.” The student asked of him the same follow-up questions and was surprised to get the identical answers given by the evolutionist. After the student expressed his skepticism that no real “selection” was involved in adaptation, the creationist probed him: “So you’re saying that you don’t believe in natural selection and it isn’t even real?”

The student responded, “I’m saying that those who think they see positive selection, negative selection, or just plain natural selection, never seem to point to any tangible exogenous selector or selecting force to justify using the word ‘selection’—and evolutionists definitely cannot appeal to it as a real force capable of explaining design.” He added further, “All that purveyors of ‘selection’ do is attribute choice-making abilities to Nature and give it credit for an organism’s endogenous capabilities to produce traits that solve environmental problems, enabling them to fit environments and fill them.”

Later, at home, the student pondered these interactions. Despite it being Diversity Day, when it came to the key issue of ascribing selective powers to inanimate objects, he did not see much diversity between the statue merchant, the evolutionist, and the creationist.

“Selective” Attributes Bestowed on Nature Ascribe Great Creative Power

Living organisms fit into their environments extremely well because they have suitable intricately arranged parts that look as though they were chosen for specific purposes. Darwin knew people thought the cause of the obvious design in nature was God. He needed a mechanism, an inanimate substitute god with that one essential attribute—the perceived ability to “think.” Nature did not need to really think. It only needed to seem like it could think in order to plant in people’s minds the thought that nature’s design only looked like it was real—though it wasn’t. He struck on a clever solution: Take something within nature, living organisms, and when certain heritable traits appear in their offspring that solve environmental stresses (yet another part of nature), depict them as being “selected for” by those same environmental stresses—voilĂ , Nature selects.

Darwin’s application of mystical powers to natural selection was immediately spotted and severely criticized.2

Darwin and his followers have all been forced to concede that selection is a false term when applied to interactions at the organism-environment interface—but they always justify metaphorical usages. Selection was resisted for decades precisely because there was no empirical evidence for a selector—evidence that still remains non-existent.

Thus, creationists have been encouraged to re-evaluate all evolutionary ideas—even those presumed to be well-established like “natural selection”—to assess their biblical accuracy and scientific reality, and replace them with better explanations. Toward that end, a series of previous Acts & Facts articles2 documented at length the following observations:
  • Indispensible: “Nature Selects” Is the Heart of Evolution. Natural selection is meant to explain the design of life and assure people see that what looks like real design is all an illusion of design—not merely something explaining biological diversity. Thus, biblical claims that people can know there is a God by the things He has made is contradicted.
  • Intelligence: Falsely Credited to “Nature.” The word “select” is an absolute to Darwinism. Prior to natural selection’s acceptance in the 1930s, the ability to deliberate alternative outcomes and make choices was restricted to conscious agents. Literature by evolutionists and creationists utilize “selection” in ways that imply it has volition, thus ascribing intelligence to the environment where none truly exists.
  • Illegitimate: “Selection” Literally Applied Apart From a Real “Selector.” Selection’s mental power resides in metaphorical usages that replace empirical evidence. In literature, environments are personified as intelligent “selectors” intentionally “working on” organisms. Advocates ease acceptance by applying the powerful analogy of artificial selection to natural selection. When they are challenged about the selector’s nonexistence, they concede that selection is a false term and their personifications are “just a figure of speech.” Since selection is not really an agent or force, it has always been mysteriously defined. Supporters continue to sharply debate whether it is a process, concept, principle, cause, effect, or something else.
  • Imposter: “Selection” Given Credit for Organism’s Capabilities. A distinctive of living things is their goal-directed operation—one of which is filling ecological niches. Via information in their DNA, organisms are the active element at the organism-environment interface in producing traits that either succeed or fail at solving environmental problems. This reality is distorted when supporters of selection claim environmental stresses “select” or “pressure.” “Selection” is a clever label applied to the normal outworking of an organism’s innate programming that enables it to fill environments. Thus, it steals credit from the organism and ultimately from the Lord.
  • Illusion: “Selection” Only Exists as a Mental Construct. When organisms possess traits enabling them to move from one environmental condition to another, minds steeped in selection actually “see” the organisms as “selected for” by some environmental stress—reflecting how people readily project human cognition onto other things. Since there is no tangible force to quantify in any way, the actual “selection” only happens in someone’s mind. The illusion is facilitated by advocates’ use of selection as, say, an external “pressure,” but then defining it as a “process” whose interrelated elements are the actual outworking of the organism’s own innate capacities to reproduce variable heritable traits.
When fully developed, these reasons detail why it is scientifically and theologically inappropriate to describe in any way what transpires at the organism-environment interface as “selection.” Two other important reasons are considered below.

Irrelevant: Meager Measurements of Selection Suggest It’s Not Real

It is true that some genuinely real things may be functionally irrelevant, but non-real things are always irrelevant. Relevance is one objective indicator of reality, which explains why evolution itself must be promoted by its purveyors as the unifying fact of biology and, therefore, vital to the economic status of future generations. Conversely, critics of evolution advance the fact that usefully relevant creations cannot be tied directly to the application of evolution, but, rather, that evolutionary thinking hinders research—especially in medicine.3

Certainly, thousands of scientific papers do invoke selection as a convenient anecdote capable of leaping over any biological or probabilistic hurdle. But if natural selection were both real and as important as evolutionists claim, then it would be reasonable to predict that there would be numerous studies actually measuring its significant influence. But, this is not the case. One initial challenge is that anything being measured must first be defined. The slippery definition of “natural selection” itself is a huge problem, but so is the definition of its sister concept, “fitness” or “the fittest.”

“Fitness” may have nothing to do strictly with survival. It has variably been defined as relating to number of mates, fertility, gross number of offspring, number of offspring living to reproductive age, offspring in specific environments, or any combination of these. The eminent evolutionist Leigh Van Valen summed up a conundrum akin to that of natural selection:

Yes, fitness is the central concept of evolutionary biology, but it is an elusive concept. Almost everyone who looks at it seriously comes out in a different place. There are literally dozens of genuinely different definitions, which I won’t review here. At least two people have called fitness indefinable, a biological primitive.…Or is it that we can’t define it because we do not fully understand it.4

This fact may decrease the surprise of why traits that are already believed to be bearing on fitness (i.e., the focus of study) show little correlation to being naturally selected.

The American Naturalist published in 2001 the largest analysis of the degree to which selection of changes of specific physical traits in an animal group affects their fitness—as measured by survival, mating success, and offspring.5 It tabulated 63 prior field studies covering 62 species and over 2,500 estimates of selection. Significance was obtained using statistical analysis and not opinions. The highest median correlation of trait selection to fitness was a low 16 percent. This means 84 percent of changes were not explained by selection. So-called directional and stabilizing selection were no more likely to happen than non-directional and disruptive selection. In studies with species sample sizes greater than 1,000, the correlation of selection to survival was essentially negligible.

Evolutionary geneticist Eugene Koonin compiled an exhaustive review of Darwinian evolution in light of recent genetics. He found the accepted proposition was false that “fixation of (rare) beneficial changes by natural selection is the main driving force of evolution that, generally, produces increasingly complex adaptive features of organisms; hence progress as a general trend in evolution.” In his view, the concept of some traits as “selected for” was essentially irrelevant and neutral processes combined with elimination primarily drove evolution.6

Consistent with these findings were additional observations by paleontologist Kurt Wise that expectations of the relevance of natural selection theory were at odds with several observations from genetics. Highly notable was “the low frequency of NS [natural selection] examples and the statistics of proposed examples of NS.” While he does not conclude that the reason for the lack of examples was suggestive that selection exists only as a mental construct, he did indicate that “this suggests that NS is not an important factor in either the development or sustenance of modern biology, so should not play a major role in creation biology theory.”7
The relevance of selection is not in actual field studies. So where do researchers find selection relevant? In laboratory studies where intelligent humans with a real volition actually make choices.

The University of Chicago’s expert on evolutionary biology, Jerry Coyne, recounts that while early researchers were reluctant to accept selection due to the “paucity of evidence,” contemporary thinkers understand that the artificial selection used by breeders is the best way to know that selection happens by environments. He says:

In contrast, artificial selection has been stunningly successful. Virtually everything that we eat, grow or pet has involved transforming a wild species, through selective breeding, into something radically different. (Bear in mind that the ancestor of the Chihuahua is the wolf.) And of the thousands of selection experiments performed on species in the laboratory, I know of fewer than a dozen that have failed to elicit a response. Why is this relevant to natural selection? As [Richard] Dawkins observes, “Artificial selection is not just an analogy for natural selection. Artificial selection constitutes a true experimental—as opposed to observational—test of the hypothesis that selection causes evolutionary change.” That’s because both processes inexorably result from genetic variation that is adaptive in the current environment, with the “environment” in one case dominated by humans who decide which individuals get to live and breed.8

So, the evidence to “see selection” actually happen has returned to metaphor…just as it started with Darwin. But this analogy cannot carry the evolutionists’ assertions. First, artificial selectors have always observed limits to variability (after millennia of breeding for speed, there are no 100-mile-per-hour horses). Second, scientists have never created two fundamentally different kinds of organisms from a common ancestor. If intelligent selectors cannot obtain fundamentally different kinds due to innate limits to change, what evidence exists that environments can, despite Coyne’s exuberant expectations (Chihuahuas from wolves)?

A leading science philosopher and evolutionist, Arthur Caplan, accurately capsulizes the relevance of selection: “Natural selection is simply a covering term or place-holder for describing the various processes involved in producing evolutionary change, or the products of such change.”9

Supporters of selection should consider that the reason for selection’s irrelevance is not that it is weak beyond belief, but that there is, in fact, nothing tangible to measure.

Idolatry: Ascribing Selective Ability to Inanimate Environmental Stresses

It is annoying when atheists are ahead of creationists in exposing false atheistic thinking. Such is the case with natural selection. Why? Because selection is not atheistic enough for thoughtful atheists. These take their faith seriously and can see that Darwin just replaced God as a supernatural cause for origins with a mystical agent, natural selection—a criticism applicable to creationist articles purporting to show “Natural Selection in Operation.”

God-like capabilities accorded to selection pour from both peer-reviewed and popular evolutionary literature. For example: “The remarkable diversity of life on Earth stands as grand testimony to the creativity of evolution. Over the course of 500 million years, natural selection has fashioned wings for flight, fins for swimming and legs for walking, and that’s just among the vertebrates.”10 The pervasiveness of this mindset was distilled by accomplished geneticist John Sanford:

“It is obvious that the omnipotent power of natural selection can do all things, explain all things….” The above statement came from an early Darwinist, but I have lost the source. The ubiquitous nature of the philosophy underlying this statement makes its source irrelevant. It could have come from just about any Darwinist. In fact, just a few years ago I might have said it myself.11

Remarkably, it is more than these gushing attributions that irritate some atheists…as they do creationists. When websites show a subterranean water table “selecting” trees with longer roots (rather than recognizing that trees have an innate capacity to produce longer roots enabling them to live in areas with deeper water tables), astute atheists can see that intelligence-based power has been ascribed to the inanimate water table—so why not attribute it to some god?

If someone held up a statue and ascribed to it powers to select, naturalists would see this as mysticism and Christians would see this as idolatry. But, in a mental disconnect, identical but more subtle attributions toward a water table instead of a statue are labeled by evolutionists and creationists alike as an “operative force” that can “favor,” “act on,” “pressure,” or “punish” organisms.

Natural selection’s intrinsic spiritual problem was derided by non-theist observers from the outset. In 1861, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences described Darwin’s Origin of Species as “metaphysical jargon thrown amiss in the natural history,” “pretentious and empty language!,” “puerile [silly] and supernatural personifications!,” and stated that Darwin “imagines afterwards that this power of selecting which he gives to Nature is similar to the power of man.”12

Selection’s essential paranormal weakness was central in Norman MacBeth’s 1971 critique of Darwinism: “Natural selection is supposed to be an impersonal force that replaces all Watchmakers of other guiding powers so that evolution can be explained without calling in external agency.” He identified that selection was always used as “an impersonal process that is continually given personal qualities.” Thus, “if the reader is surprised to find natural selection disintegrating under scrutiny, I was no less so. But when we reflect upon the matter is it so surprising?”13

The innate mystical problem of selection was addressed yet again by two distinguished atheists in 2010 in a book urging fellow evolutionists to end appeals to selection’s omnipotent power and to consider new mechanisms:

Familiar claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Darwin didn’t manage to get mental causes out of his account of how evolution works. He just hid them in the unexamined analogy between selection by breeding and natural selection...we can claim something Darwinists cannot. There is no ghost in our machine; neither God, nor Mother Nature…and there are no phantom breeders either. What breeds the ghosts in Darwinism is its covert appeal to intensional biological explanations....Darwin pointed the direction to a thoroughly naturalistic—indeed a thoroughly atheistic—theory of phenotype [trait] formation; but he didn’t see how to get the whole way there. He killed off God, if you like, but Mother Nature and other pseudoagents got away scot-free. We think it’s now time to get rid of them too.14

Creationists should also seriously consider what is really explained scientifically by merely saying that a trait was “selected for” or “selected against.” Those magical phrases cannot truly be expected to reveal why certain traits originate and exist in populations.

Evolutionists are currently bound to selection. But read creationist literature. Consider if there is not a single printed explanation invoking a mysterious power that “positively selects,” “operates on,” “punishes,” or “favors” that could not have had a more precise scientific description referencing the internal capacities of the organism—and skipped attributing imaginary intelligent actions to any exogenous inanimate object. Creationist literature can function exceedingly well without those words; but try to imagine what evolutionary literature could explain without using them—it would be starved of its mechanism and life. Selection-based accounts will have mystical forces granting “favor,” but organism-based descriptions will stay on the facts—and honor the Lord.15

If some atheists see how natural selection is an inherently idolatrous explanation for the design of life and desire to “get rid” of it, creationists ought to as well. Consider the Lord’s declaration in Isaiah 42:8: “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”

Selection is idolatrous in the basest of ways. Not only does it ascribe intelligence-like powers to unconscious environmental features, like any other idol, but it induces people not to give the Lord credit for the incredible intelligence and machinery He has built into His creatures that enable them to adapt to environmental features.

References

  1. MacPherson, K. Evolution’s new wrinkle: Proteins with ‘cruise control’ provide new perspective. Princeton University news release, November 10, 2008, reporting on research published in Chakrabarti, R. et al. 2008. Mutagenic Evidence for the Optimal Control of Evolutionary Dynamics. Physical Review Letters. 100: 258103.
  2. See Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Recognizing Missed Warning Signs. Acts & Facts. 40 (5): 12-15; Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: How Natural Selection Is Given Credit for Design in Nature. Acts & Facts. 40 (7): 12-15; Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: The Illusion That Natural Selection Operates on Organisms. Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 12-15.
  3. Guliuzza, R. 2009. Darwinian Medicine: A Prescription for Failure. Acts & Facts. 38 (2): 32.
  4. Van Valen, L. 1989. Three Paradigms of Evolution. Evolutionary Theory. 9: 2.
  5. Kingsolver, J. et al. 2001. The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations. The American Naturalist. 157 (3): 245-61.
  6. Koonin, E. V. 2009. Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acids Research. 37 (4): 1011-34.
  7. Wise, K. 2009. Creation biology suggestions from evolutionary genetics. Occasional Papers of the BSG. 13: 6.
  8. Coyne, J. The Improbability Pump: Why has natural selection always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory? The Nation, May 10, 2010.
  9. Caplan, A. 1982. Say It Just Ain’t So: Adaptational Stories and Sociobiological Explanations of Social Behavior. Philosophical Forum. 13 (2-3): 149.
  10. Jones, D. 2010. Evolvability: How to cash in on the genetic lottery. New Scientist. 2766: 46-49.
  11. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 161.
  12. Huxley, T. H. 1894. Darwiniana. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 65.
  13. Macbeth, N. 1971. Darwin Retried. Boston, MA: The Harvard Common Press, 45-50.
  14. Fodor, J. and M. Piattelli-Palmarini. 2010. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 162-163.
  15. Thomas, B. Fish Designed to Tolerate Poison. ICR News. Posted on www.icr.org March 3, 2011.
* Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative.
Cite this article: Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection’s Idolatrous Trap. Acts & Facts. 40 (11): 12-15. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Why am I hard on Darwinism? Because I believe it goes beyond wrong to the realm of evil.   Because it kills people.   Because it ruins lives.  Because is promotes racism and genocide.  Because it exists only to deny the existence of God. 

Darwinism helps convince innocent children that there is no God.  It steals resources away from real scientific research.  Darwinism will help send millions into despair as they find no reason for existence in a world with nothing but random accidents and no surety that anyone can even think for themselves.  Darwinism will send millions of people to Hell.  Darwinism was the excuse that allows Richard Dawkins to claim:   

"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

Isn't it odd that Dawkins is so intellectually satisfied but why is he then afraid to expose his satisfied intellect to debate with opponents?  Excerpt:

"Richard Dawkins alleges that Charles Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".[1] Yet, where is Richard Dawkins' intellectual conviction and courage? On May 14, 2011, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published a news story entitled Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.[2] In The Daily Telegraph article Dr. Daniel Came, a member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[3]"

References

  1. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-to-be-an-intellectually-fulfilled-atheist-or-not/
  2. Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2011
  3. Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2011

ROMANS 1:18-25 ESV -

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

9 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Quote-mining, distortion, and the occasional outright lie. Yep, your creationist sources are running true to form, Radar.

But Eugenie Scott, founder and Executive Director of the NCSE, thinks people do notice. That’s why her organization produced a new film about the creationists, “No Dinosaurs in Heaven,” starring her, and is taking it on the road.

"No Dinosaurs in Heaven" was not produced by the NCSE. It was produced by an independent film studio. Jezebel Productions has been around for almost thirty years, and this is the first time it got anywhere near science or creationism as a topic.

I see that either you or your source also copied the hoary old lie about "the title of Origin of Species proves Darwin was a racist."

Casey Luskin's verbal assault on Eugenie Scott is thoroughly dissected by Wesley Elsberry, here.

Randy Guliuzza's attempt to criticize the concept of natural selection is nonsense driven by semantic trickery, his own ignorance, and the occasional outright deception. It's not news that in the absence of any strong selective pressure, neutral drift is the dominant factor in genetic change. However, where a strong selective pressure is present, selection works. We see the evidence of this all around us, every day, everywhere we look, from the finches of the Galapagos to antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant insects.

AmericanVet said...

Fine, the NCSE had a film made rather than doing it themselves. Not much of a distinction.

Origin of Species was used by racists to support their viewpoint, this is historical fact whether you like it or not. Eugenics + Malthus + Darwin = racism supported. Mix in Communism/Socialism with the inevitable tyrant and millions upon millions were slaughtered. To say Darwinism did not support and encourage racism and genocide is the lie.

The NCSE is the main problem, Scott is just the face of the organization that exists to stifle free speech and dissent from Darwinism.

Guiiuzza does not attempt, he succeeds in shining the light on the utter inadequacy of Darwinism to actually explain the workings of natural selection. Natural selection was discovered and named by a Creationist, Edward Blyth. It describes the organism's ability to adapt to changing environments by means of a rich genetic information pool and a complex coding system built into the DNA-Cell structure.

Mankind has used the inbuilt variation within kind mechanisms to breed for features within many kinds of creatures. Thus directed variation has been a huge success.

Meanwhile the system does NOT support Darwinism. We know now that the reproductive process has built-in quality control to eliminate as many mutations as possible and there are switches that rapidly allow for some fast variation within the organism, such as the beaks of finches.

Mutation is the enemy of the organism rather than the driver of change.

Jon, your outright lies about the facts of the makeup of organisms, the nature of the sedimentary rock layers and whether there are actually vestigal organs or "junk" DNA are probably just the brainwashing you have received. But supporting Eugenie Scott is the scientific equivalent of defending Lester Maddox and George Wallace when the South resisted integration.

I reject your comment and support the post with the exception of word usage. The NCSE had a movie made rather than making it themselves. Quibbling. Same outcome. Same nonsense.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Radar, I don't see anybody censoring you from presenting YEC's interpretation of dating-related data that actually lines up the data with their worldview. The only thing that's stopping you (and far more intelligent YECs than you, e.g. Sarfati) from presenting it is that the data don't support YEC.

"Origin of Species was used by racists to support their viewpoint, this is historical fact whether you like it or not."

Nothing to do with liking or disliking it, it's simply irrelevant. The Christian faith and a belief in God has been used as justification for some heinous actions as well - do you think this should discredit Christianity itself, or theism?

"Natural selection was discovered and named by a Creationist, Edward Blyth."

From the Wikipedia article on Edward Blyth (emphasis mine), citing The American Naturalist:

"Edward Blyth wrote three articles on variation, discussing the effects of artificial selection and describing the process in nature (later called natural selection) as restoring organisms in the wild to their archetype (rather than forming new species). However, he never actually used the term "natural selection".[5]"

Could you please back up your claim that Blyth coined the term natural selection? Source?

"We know now that the reproductive process has built-in quality control to eliminate as many mutations as possible and there are switches that rapidly allow for some fast variation within the organism, such as the beaks of finches."

This does not contradict evolution. As Jon Woolf pointed out some time ago, such a quality control can also have evolved, seeing as it represents clear survival advantages.

"Mutation is the enemy of the organism rather than the driver of change."

That depends entirely on the mutation (which may be harmful, neutral or beneficial), and the claim is not that mutation is the driver of change, but that mutation plus natural selection is the driver of change. Since natural selection preserves beneficial mutations, it can act as a driver of change.

Why do you keep complaining that "mutation is not the driver of change" when that is not the claim of the opposing side? This obvious error in your statement has been pointed out to you numerous times.

AmericanVet said...

Before I answer HLH, I will ask a question. If mutations are not the change agents for Darwinism, what are the change agents?

I am sure you have no idea at all.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Before I answer HLH, I will ask a question."

Well I know you can't come up with an answer to the question re. a YEC interpretation of dating-related data...

"If mutations are not the change agents for Darwinism, what are the change agents?"

Did you not read the previous comment?

AmericanVet said...

As predicted, HLH has no idea what the Darwinist change agent might be if we subtract mutations. HLH should not know, because there is no change agent available for Darwinism except mutations and they are deleterious and go in the wrong direction.

I have already begun my (nonconsecutive) dating methods series by the way. Pay attention!

Jon Woolf said...

Origin of Species was used by racists to support their viewpoint

Racists will use anything they can manage to twist into support their vile ideas. They don't care about accuracy. Kind of like creationists in that respect.

Darwin himself, of course was quite liberal and egalitarian for an Englishman of the 1800s.

Fine, the NCSE had a film made rather than doing it themselves.

What sources do you have that say "No Dinosaurs In Heaven" was made at the request of the NCSE? (reliable sources only, please)

Mutation is the enemy of the organism rather than the driver of change.

Someday, Radar, you'll figure out that binary logic is inadequate to many situations. This is one of them. Mutation is both an enemy of the organism and a driver of evolutionary change.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"As predicted, HLH has no idea what the Darwinist change agent might be if we subtract mutations. HLH should not know, because there is no change agent available for Darwinism except mutations and they are deleterious and go in the wrong direction. "

Even when provided a clue re. where the answer can be found, you don't wise up. It's not about subtracting mutations, but adding the element of natural selection.

As Jon Woolf pointed out, mutations being harmful in some (even most) instances doesn't mean they can't also add beneficial information to an organism once selected.

Re. "mutations [...] are deleterious and go in the wrong direction"

Can you honestly say that this applies to ALL mutations? Based on scientific evidence?

If not, then your statement is pretty meaningless and you're merely engaging in some sleight of hand to fool your fellow believers.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"I have already begun my (nonconsecutive) dating methods series by the way. Pay attention!"

Yes, I saw it. And as predicted, it completely fails to answer the question that's been posed to you over and over again.

Maybe you're the one that should be paying attention.