It is almost incredible to watch the tenacity of the claims for darwinian theory. The variant here claims that while mutation might be random natural selection is not, but that is nonsense. Natural selection can’t produce the complicated interior structural changes that would show evolution of an outstanding organismic form.
In no field is the hold of pseudo-science so tenacious and backed up by ‘scientists’ who should know better than to create dogma where uncertainty reigns…
The public has been conditioned for so long here that doubters can themselves become befuddled by the sophistical argumentation, to say nothing of the factor of public opinion which silences many who know better but can’t risk breaking with conformity here.
Part of the confusion arises because of the fear of religion (the two examples of the monkeys at a typewriter and the tornado in a junkyard are creationist standbys) but the logic in both cases is sound: random chance can never be right.
The eonic effect is useful because it brings home the vast complexity of evolution, the need for a form factor and the probable need for a cosmological framework for planetary evolution.
1. The false claim says: “A random process like evolution could not produce the kind of complexity and beauty that we see in nature.”Bring up the theory of evolution in a group of people and there is a very good chance that at least one person will invoke the image of imaginary monkeys mindlessly banging on typewriters for a billion years but never producing sensible prose or beautiful poetry. Similarly, a tornado ripping through a junkyard never manages to assemble a working jumbo jet from all that scrap metal and spare parts.The conclusion to which these scenarios are supposed to lead us to is that evolution is a failed, invalid theory because nature can’t possibly throw molecules together randomly and build by chance a big complex elephant or a tiny complex Euglena.