Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
A thorough and masterly book punctuated with a delicate sense of humor ... Until he has read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested this authoritative volume, no one should presume henceforth to speak on Darwin and Darwinism.
hmmm...
We begin at page 333 of the Elephant Paperback edition published in 1996:
"...For his essential method was neither observing nor the more prosaic mode of scientific reasoning, but a peculiarly imaginative, inventive mode of argument.
"In was this that Whewell objected to in the Origin:
For it is assumed that the mere possibility of imagining a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another, is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place. And next, that such a possibility being thus imagined, we may assume an unlimited number of generations for the transition to take place in, and that this indefinite time may extinguish all doubt that the transitions really have taken place.
"What Darwin was doing, in effect, was creating a 'logic of possibility'. Unlike conventional logic, where the compound of possibilities results not in a greater possibility, or probability, but in a lesser one, the logic of the Origin was one in which possibilities were assumed to add up to probability.
"Like many revolutionaries, Darwin embarked upon this revolutionary enterprise in the most innocent and reasonable spirit. He started out by granting the hypothetical nature of the theory and went on to defend the use of hypotheses in science, such hypotheses being justified if they explained a sufficiently large number of facts. His own theory, he continued, was 'rendered in some degree probable' by one set of facts and could be tested and confirmed by another -- among which he included the geological succession of organic beings. It was because it 'explained' both of these bodies of facts that it was removed from the status of mere hypothesis and elevated to the rank of 'well-grounded theory'. This procedure, by which one of the major difficulties of the theory was made to bear witness in its favor, can only be accounted for by a confusion in the meaning of 'explain' -- between the sense in which facts are 'explained' by a theory and the sense in which difficulties may be 'explained away'. It is the difference between compliant facts which lend themselves to the theory and refractory ones which do not and can only be brought into submission by a more or less plausible excuse. By confounding the two, both orders of explanation, both orders of fact, were entered on the same side of the ledger, the credit side. Thus the 'difficulties' he had so candidly confessed to were converted into assets.
"This technique for the conversion of possibilities into probabilities and liabilities into assets was the more effective the longer the process went on. In the chapter entitled 'Difficulties on Theory' the solution of each difficulty in turn came more easily to Darwin as he triumphed over -- not simply disposed of -- the preceding one. The reader was put under a constantly mounting obligation; if he accepted one explanation, he was committed to accept the next. Having first agreed to the theory in cases where only some of the transitional stages were missing, the reader was expected to acquiesce in those cases where most of the stages were missing, and finally in those where there was no evidence of stages at all. Thus, by the time of the problem of the eye was under consideration, Darwin was insisting that anyone who had come with him so far could not rightly hesitate to go further. In the same spirit, he rebuked those naturalists who held that while some reputed species were varieties rather than real species, other species were real. Only the 'blindness of preconceived opinion', he held, could make them balk at going the whole way -- as if it was not precisely the propriety of going the whole way that was at issue.
"As possibilities were promoted into probabilities, and the probabilities into certainty, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge. When imagination exhausted itself and Darwin could devise no hypothesis to explain away a difficulty, he resorted to the blanket assurance that we were too ignorant of the ways of nature to know why one event occurred rathar than another, and hence ignorant of the explanation that would reconcile the facts to his theory..." And so on ...
Darwin was a masterly sophist, but a poor scientist.
You are right. Thanks. Unfortunately it is too late to change it now. Will try to remember in the future.
Never! All you have is THAT smashed bug. That bug was the only time those molecules will be assembled into THAT bug in the history of the universe. You have altered your own experiment by your own interference.
Better yet, if we could microwave that bug so it weighed 200#'s and smashed you to death. How many billions of years until you reassemble yourself and fly away?
I'm uncertain what the relevance of this might be. A process does not require any information beyond what is already inherent in the process. Much the same as a hurricane assembles itself via a given sequence of events (before going on to dissipate) so do higher forms of life assemble themselves via given sequences of events. The required information is already an inherent part of the process.
I am particularly interested in the formulas that says order increases in an open system.
Well, one of those appears to be the evolutionary model - and it manages to say that admirably well.
How about a link to where we can read about abiogenesis and the success in the lab in producing life from non life.
The fact that something happens even under the most extraordinary of circumstances does not mean it never happens. Even if there's only a 10 billion to 1 chance of abiogenesis at any given moment in a particular environment that simply means that you would expect to see it in only 1 out of 10 billion examples of that environment. In that event, whatever sentient beings arose from the 10 billion to 1 chance would a priori find themselves the product of that most extraordinary of circumstances.
(ie. I can smash a bug and have all of the components, in the proper proportion to produce life... so how many billion years are needed when that bug reassembles itself and flies away?)
I can smash a diamond or an obsidian into dust in the proper proportion to reproduce a diamond or an obsidian. Regardless, the likelihood of those dust particles ever reassembling themselves into a diamond or an obsidian are exceedingly dim. This does not establish that they did not do so, however, under the original circumstances while undergoing the initial process.
It does not surprise me. Evolutionists are fast thinkers - they know when they are stuck with no reply.
Thanks. A compliment, I'm sure.
Not quite ...
Keep up the great work, since you have been my absolute best source as an example of false science.
This one was absolutly fantastic, and I am loving it!
The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.
A better understanding of the scientific method and scientific terminology might lead you to rethink your rash statements. A "theory" is a conceptual framework. A "hypothesis" is a working assumption. There are four basics steps in the scientific method:
(1) Observation and description of a process, phenomenon, or set of phenomena.
(2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the processes or phenomena.
(3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existance of other processes, phenomena, or additional observable events.
(4) Tests of the predictions by other observors or experiments.
The so-called "theory of evolution" is actually a complex interaction of several theories, observations, descriptions, and phenomena. Naturally, the quality and quantity of the evidence is key in developing the conceptual framework. Unfortunately, the fossil record is much like a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Today, paleontologists are trying to piece together and describe the nature of the puzzle when they only have a few dozens of pieces. Even if they have solid assumptions about what the puzzle should resemble, they must, through the scientific process, test and re-test their hypotheses.
If the "present is the key to the past" (uniformitarianism), then a proper understanding of present-day biological and biochemical processes might provide some guidance to understanding how those processes might have operated in the past. I would say our absolute understanding of these processes is in its formative stage. I would expect changes in evolutionary theory to occur all the time.
"Evolution" is such a complex framework, there is no scientist who will claim that it is an undeniable fact. In fact, most geo- and bio-scientists expect new discoveries to modify and add to the existing knowledge base. The scientific knowledge of biological processes has grown by leaps and bounds over the past fifty years. The same could be said about the status of the earth sciences.
Finding out what "went wrong" to a scientist is as important as the development of the original hypothesis. The new data allows the modification and re-casting of the hypothesis for re-testing. That is what the scientific method is about.
The mere suggestion of an alternative or supplementary hypothesis does not, in and of itself, disprove the first hypothesis. Factually disproving a part of a complex framework does not in and of itself invalidate the entire framework.
It is not my intention to be part of a flame war online, as most of these creation science threads become. But, like any good debater, if you wish to engage in a debate, at least formulate a premise with fewer holes than a round of swiss cheese.
If there were a constructive criticism I would offer to both sides of the evolution v creation debate it would be to never "protest too much." IMHO, the people who are only half-listening (or never click on links) will take particular note of excessive protests and presume to the contrary.
That's funny - I was thinking exactly the same thing...
It is interesting that when shown scientific evidence against their theory evolutionists start attacking religion and calling it scientifically false. Shows to me that their belief in evolution is not based on science (since they are unwilling to defend it on scientific grounds). Instead their adherence to evolution is clearly based on a materialistic/atheistic view of life derived from hatred at any sort of superior being. You and your friends can believe as you like. However, if you cannot defend your theory on scientific grounds, then at least be honest enough to admit that it is a religious belief totally based on personal predilections.
I dare say gore3k, that you threw down the first gauntlet at post # 1 with:
"Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory".
There is no rebuttal to superstition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.