History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The need for some scientific sanity on Darwinism

June 30th, 2009 · 3 Comments

I am often puzzled by the tenacity of the Darwin debate, and the unthinking monomania of the defenders of Darwin. No other science has this characteristic. Physicists routinely allow dissenting views, within the spectrum of mathematical theory, and have had multiple upgrades/revisions of basic views. This is a sign of a real science, and a thriving one.
But with Darwinism we are stuck forever in the nineteenth century, with the deliberate distortion of the record, the deliberate squelching of dissent, the constant and repetitive promotion of boilerplate Darwinism to condition the public. The final sordid joke is that we now supect Darwin of plagiarism from Wallace, who was the real source of the theory of natural selection, and who soon moved beyond his original views.
A host of critics met at Altenberg last year, to suggest moving on. They have simply been deep-sixed already by the establishment.
This rigidity is itself direct evidence that we are not dealing with a real science. More like a belief system that can be defended rhetorically and ideologically.
This sterile activity is destroying science. Who can trust scientists anymore as they succumb to this deluded segment of the real scientific world?

The problem is obvious to a student of Kant: a concealed metaphysics takes hold of the mind, and creates a kind of metaphysical delusion, here based on the magical abuse of the idea of natural selection.

There is the clear obsession with the religious debate, now the ID debate. But scientists are too paranoid here. People can argue ID all they wish, but without hard proof, so what? Instead of intelligent reserve, scientists, so-called, become all the more obsessed with the claims of natural selection, which seems to guarantee all their beliefs. It is the wrong strategy altogether. Admitting your ignorance will disarm religious critics.
But, whatever the case, these religious critics already understand the flaws in Darwinism better than the scientists. Disaster!
The question is fairly simple: natural selection is not a properly founded basis for evolutionary theory. So why not drop it and simply proceed on the basis of what is known, and refrain from trying to force the public into an ideological creed?
I have some advice for the science/Darwin establishment: don’t delegate a job you can do for yourself to the Al Qaeda.
Moral: there are a lot of people out there who want to destroy this civilization. The frustration with this useless question has disillusioned them beyond recovery as they confront the sheer stupidity of scientists.

What are the options beyond living with our ignorance? There are none.
What do we know? We observe evolution in deep time. Noone can quite fathom how evolutionary dynamics achieves this. Sterile metaphysical generalizations based on natural selection have distorted the reality of our ignorance. So why not be truthful about it?
The thugs love the natural selection paradigm. You get free violence, free economic greed, all kinds of freebies based on theory. So, natch, you have to protect the ‘scientific credentials’ to preserve those ideologies.
It’s all crap, and to call it science will destroy science.

It could end badly.

Tags: Evolution · Science & Religion

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Martin // Jun 30, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    “No other science has this characteristic.”

    Germ Theory of Disease.
    Plate Tectonics.
    Heliocentrism of the Solar System.
    Gene Theory of Inheritance.

    Scientists sure are dogmatic about all the above, aren’t they?

  • 2 Stephen P. Smith // Jul 1, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Why are they dumbing down the public with Darwinism, and destroying science?

    The answer is quite simple: they are expressing passive aggression in their quest to breed more units of the state (and class room). It is the same issue with solipsism, as discussed over in serenityandtolerance.

  • 3 Darwiniana » Log: some recent posts // Jul 1, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    […] Comments dandy on One reason Darwinism fails on the spotStephen P. Smith on The need for some scientific sanity on DarwinismMartin on The need for some scientific sanity on DarwinismDarwiniana » Will Darwinism destroy […]

Leave a Comment