The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[mrjesse]

Primarily the time light correction and spin. The Stellar Aberration only plays a small part at these distances and has factored out the earths spin.

So do you agree then that Stellar Aberration's effect is almost nothing compared to the 2.1 degrees and therefore we can ignore it while discussing a lag of 2.1 degrees?

By the way, you first said Stellar Aberration, and you illustrated the same, all the while talking about the time of flight from sun to earth of light, but Stellar Aberration has nothing to do with the distance from sun to earth. Had you just confused the two terms (like I did in a recent post) or was that just ignorance? I would hope that when recounting the snow-falling experiment you'd have noticed that it was the wrong principle. What was that all about? Did you think I wouldn't notice the difference?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Fichori]

"Well, I'm pretty certain that if I stand out in the yard, spraying the garden hose in a solid jet, swaying right to left that the water at any instant forms an arc shape at peak angular rate. Each drop is traveling in a straight line, but the overall swath of water isn't straight. But you're right in that the drops themselves travel in a straight line. (and that light travels in a straight line.) I would like to retract my claim that light could go through a bent tube."

If the tube had the correct curvature and was moving/rotating in the same direction and speed as the source the water droplets would travel through the curved tube.

Measured against a stationary frame of reference, the water travels in a straight line.

However, using the water source for a frame of reference, the droplets do curve.

[Fichori]

So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

Think of light as a bullet that has been shot from a star. Now when we look into very distant space we are seeing the 'bullets' that they fired a long time ago. Many of the stars that fired the bullets are now gone even though we still see them shining brightly in the sky. All of them have dramatically altered their position from where we seem to see them. Earth and the distant stars have had billions of years to move around, especially in an accelerating universe.

Oh, and the light from the Sun still takes 8.3 minutes to get to us : )

Ok, I might be getting into Fichorian physics here, but...
A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position.
(Or have gone directly through the observers position at 2x the speed of light.)

[LeGrande]

A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position.

At least you agree that a stars apparent position is not its actual position. Ethan seems to think that even the most distant star is exactly where we see it.

[LeGrande]

If the tube had the correct curvature and was moving/rotating in the same direction and speed as the source the water droplets would travel through the curved tube.

Except for the curvature caused by gravity, your curved tube wouldn't work, except to force the water into a curve. Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line. This is simple Newtonian physics, f=ma. What is your force that curves the water?

However, using the water source for a frame of reference, the droplets do curve.

No, they appear to curve.

[Fichori]

A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position.

"At least you agree that a stars apparent position is not its actual position. Ethan seems to think that even the most distant star is exactly where we see it."

Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?

[LeGrande]

By the way, you first said Stellar Aberration, and you illustrated the same, all the while talking about the time of flight from sun to earth of light, but Stellar Aberration has nothing to do with the distance from sun to earth. Had you just confused the two terms (like I did in a recent post) or was that just ignorance? I would hope that when recounting the snow-falling experiment you'd have noticed that it was the wrong principle. What was that all about? Did you think I wouldn't notice the difference?

I am pretty sure that I used the term aberration of light not stellar aberration. I might have used the term in replying to you and Ethan because both of you started using the term.

The other thing is that stellar aberration illustrates that the apparent position is not identical to the actual position and I have been trying to use every example I can think of. Trying to get this very simple concept (apparent vs actual position ) across is like pulling teeth.

[LeGrande]

Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?

No. Luckily that is not what I am claiming : ) Although I have read some serious hypothesis that make the claim that the speed of light was faster just after the big bang.

I am simply trying to explain that the apparent position (where you see them) of celestial objects is different from their actual position. I never would have guessed that this simple concept would be so hard to explain. I now have even more sympathy for Giordano Bruno.

[Fichori]

If the tube had the correct curvature and was moving/rotating in the same direction and speed as the source the water droplets would travel through the curved tube.

Except for the curvature caused by gravity, your curved tube wouldn't work, except to force the water into a curve. Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line. This is simple Newtonian physics, f=ma. What is your force that curves the water?

First you say "Except for the curvature caused by gravity," and then in the very next breath you say "Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line."
Make up your mind already!
My original statement did not cover gravity for simplicity.
I rather think that your interjecting gravity into the equation is simply a strawman.

However, using the water source for a frame of reference, the droplets do curve.

No, they appear to curve.

Somebody doesn't seem to know what a frame of reference is!

[Fichori]

"I am simply trying to explain that the apparent position (where you see them) of celestial objects is different from their actual position. I never would have guessed that this simple concept would be so hard to explain. I now have even more sympathy for Giordano Bruno." [excerpt]

What is the maximum separation between the apparent position and the actually position?

Is it possible for a stars actual position to be 180 degrees from its apparent position?

[LeGrande]

First you say "Except for the curvature caused by gravity," and then in the very next breath you say "Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line." Make up your mind already!My original statement did not cover gravity for simplicity. I rather think that your interjecting gravity into the equation is simply a strawman.

I fail to see the problem. We are both factoring out gravity. Without the force of gravity the water travels in a straight line.

Somebody doesn't seem to know what a frame of reference is!

I agreed with you that according to the revolving sources frame of reference the water appears to curve. You already agreed that measured against a stationary reference the water travels in a straight line. I am not disagreeing with you.

[Fichori]

"I fail to see the problem. We are both factoring out gravity. Without the force of gravity the water travels in a straight line." [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

Then why did you say "Except for the curvature caused by gravity, your curved tube wouldn't work, except to force the water into a curve."?

I think its time you took an online IQ test and disclosed the results.

[LeGrande]

What is the maximum separation between the apparent position and the actually position?

I really have no idea. Throw in space-time curvature and stars 10 billion years old and I am clueless.

Is it possible for a stars actual position to be 180 degrees from its apparent position?

Sure, just position a black hole or two appropriately. And no I am not a racist.

[Fichori]

LeGrande:

I just had a thought.

You’ve been trying to tell us about how the apparent position of the sun is not its actual position.

If you could give us a link to some peer-reviewed scientific journal that is available online that describes this phenomenon there is a chance that we would understand it better.

Sometimes having different people conveying the same idea but with different words and phrases makes it more understandable.

Thanks.

[LeGrande]

I think its time you took an online IQ test and disclosed the results.

LOL I actually like taking those tests : ) Do you have a favorite in mind or do you want to administer the test? Not all tests are created equal.

I almost didn't make it into Densa because I used my real name. That was a tough one.

Seriously though, have I ever bragged about my IQ? I don't think so, in fact after these series of discussions I bet I would be lucky to break 70, hardly mensa material.

[Fichori]

The ones that show 5 different patterns and say ‘pick the next in the sequence’ are so confusing!
(And the results are usually very unflattering.)

So I just pick one at random. ;)

The reason I asked was because I was worried that you had an IQ around 180 and were talking way over all of our heads. ;)

[LeGrande]

If you could give us a link to some peer-reviewed scientific journal that is available online that describes this phenomenon there is a chance that we would understand it better.

I doubt there is a peer reviewed scientific journal that exclusively discusses this. I think ever since it was discovered that light wasn't instantaneous the principle has been accepted.

I do have a quote that pertains to the original point that I brought up and describes the phenomena, and makes my point : )

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath249/kmath249.htm

"and therefore the Earth's gravitational acceleration should always point directly toward the Sun's position at the present instant, rather than (say) the Sun's position eight minutes ago."

[LeGrande]

The reason I asked was because I was worried that you had an IQ around 180 and were talking way over all of our heads. ;)

Nah, I am sure it is closer to half of that and declining : ( And when it comes to politics and economics, I am convinced by what I am seeing, that I would be hard pressed to match a slugs IQ.

[Fichori]

Politics and economics?

A single academically challenged slug has more intelligence than the sum of the intelligence of the entire congress.

To compare the two is really an insult to the slug.

But I digress. ;)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The point of a two body model is to simplify everything as much as possible, and reduce the number of variables.

Well then, let's take the simplest solution. Merely observe how the Sun moves against the stars and that's the end of it.