Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".


Frank J wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)


When Creos say NS is unfalsifiable they are talking about Evos who
explain everything by saying "NS-did-it". But forget Creos, your own
geneticists admit the obvious:

(snip pathetic quote mine that tries to slip out of a classic
intra-creationism contradiction)


Pure weasel words, Frank.

There is no quote mine. Lewontin made a free standing factual
observation: NS explains everything therefore it explains nothing. You
and the Group have evaded. How much more clearer could it be ? IF there
was a quote mine you would have shown, instead you invoke the standard
Darwinian misrepresentation (quote mine).

Here is the full quote - again:

Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is
hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down
in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing
scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for
any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to
conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what
good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure
to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real
structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically
unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural
science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation
with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection
states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur,
giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different
genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different
environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts
that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural
selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that
the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except
that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine
observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a
cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection
is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural
selection explains nothing because it explains everything."
"Testing the Theory of Natural Selection" Nature March 24, 1972
p.181



BTW, Richard Dawkins, in "The Blind Watchmaker", 14 years after the
quote you mined, and 20 years ago, took pains to differentiate
Darwinian evolution from the "NS is everthing" caricature.


I own a copy of BW, what page is this on ?



Did you also falsify "macroevolution" too, IOW did you address any of
Douglas Theobald's potential falsifiers?


Yes, I have falsified macroevolution, and I never heard of Douglas
Theobald.

Chez Watt!!!


I have clearly and invulnerably falsified:

1. NS

2. Macroevolution

3. Human evolution

4. Gradualality

5. Theistic evolutionism (my personal favorite). I am going to
humiliate Ken Miller and the Clergy Letter Project and enjoy every
moment.

6. Common ancestry

7. Charles Darwin will be taken to task like no one has ever seen
before.

There are horribly ignorant Darwinists who do not understand how the
19th century effects things today. When I destroy the foundation
everything built on it goes with it.

In addition, I will PROVE that:

C'mon, you know "prove" is for math.


Negative.

We know anyone can "prove" anything with numbers and stats. Its just
ONE line of evidence.


1. Special Creation is true.

Do you mean "independent abiogenesis"? You can't say no, because, if
you falsified common ancestry, that's all that's left. So you might as
well use technical terms.


I mean Mind caused matter (First Cause), and not Darwin's paradigm of
matter causing Mind ("Darwin's inversion" Dennett 1995:66).


Do you say exactly which species originated independently, and when?


When the above Mind caused First Cause fact is established we then
refer to the only source we have for sequence (Bible).

"When" is about 600 mya according to Darwinists, but Woodmorappe has
shown in "Studies in Flood Geology" how the geological ages, if
submerged in water, could yield deceptive observations resulting in
Darwinian deep timescales.

Do you reference Schwabe or Senapathy, who are AFAIK, the only ones who
even attempted to make independent abiogenesis sound scientific.

And please don't tell me you never heard of them either.


I haven't, sorry. I have no interest in abiogeneis since it is an
atheist invent based on need and anti-religious reasons.



2. design = Designer. Paley remains true.

Dembski apparently disagrees. Do you challenge him directly in your
paper, or is every pseudoscientific anti-evolutionist "sacred" in the
"big tent"?


Nonsense. The only thing Dembski is in error about is the cause of
Darwin's loss of faith. Like Darwinists, he asserts the death of Annie
in 1851 is the cause = counterfactual conclusion.



This
very important section is already written. I have missed so many
deadlines that I am afraid to set anymore. God has now enabled me to
spend full time on the project that He has given me. My goal is no
later than November, but obviously I cannot make any promises.

Without giving anything away (because I am thoroughly looking forward
to the shock value) my theory, based on the totality of available
evidence, says the general ToE is a valid explanation of biological
reality, but wholly and demonstrably incorrect.

Ray

Well I hope that you are not giving anything away, because all I can
detect from your comments is the same old argument from incredulity
wrapped in a bait-and-switch with the argument from design.

If this claim had any merit then you would have taken the time to
actually explain and apply it to something I said.

Except that you hadn't said anything that hadn't been said 1000x
before. Even what you add above is the same old stuff, and much of
which the "don't ask, don't tell" ID crowd is backpedaling away from.

If you really have something new you should be eager to rub it in the
faces of IDers, and YECs (if it's OEC) or OECs (if it's YEC), and not
just "Darwinists".


SNIP....

and that you will surprise
us with something that no anti-evolutionist has given us to date - a
hypothesis that stands on its own merits, and not on a precieved (or
fabricated) weakness in any other one.

I promise that I will deliver exactly what you state above: an
absolutely original and unique thesis and the extraordinary evidence to
back it up. After Huxley read the "Origin" he remarked: "How stupid of
me not to have thought of that." I believe Creationists will say the
same after reading my work, and evos will be enraged.

Which creationists will be enraged? If you are giving away bits and
pieces, you might as well start talking about at least *when* your
"special creation" events occurred.

If you really debunk evolution, I'd have no problem with that - few
defenders of evolution will. And if, unlike the DI crowd, you really
catch the designer red-handed, and it is indeed God, I'd be
disappointed that He was outsmarted, but I'd have to live with it.

In any case if you do have the first original theory that replaces
evolution, it will necessarily also replace all but one, if not all, of
the mutually contradictory creationisms.

Ooh, maybe that's why Ed Conrad has been so scarce. You and he have
been working behind the scenes to finally develop "man as old as coal"?

Ray

You guys have way more in common with Conrad than me.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... It is claimed by some that evolution by natural selection is a "fact" ... <end quote> ... Her is your opening paragraph as I would edit it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Oh dear.
    ... "Natural selection is the driving force of our evolution, ... But that doesn't mean society *ought* to be run on Darwinian lines. ... /That/ is what Professor Dawkins means. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Oh dear.
    ... "Natural selection is the driving force of our evolution, ... But that doesn't mean society *ought* to be run on Darwinian lines. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Oh dear.
    ... "Natural selection is the driving force of our evolution, ... But that doesn't mean society *ought* to be run on Darwinian lines. ... No, but if you actually don't understand what he is saying, typing slowly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Oh dear.
    ... "Natural selection is the driving force of our evolution, ... But that doesn't mean society *ought* to be run on Darwinian lines. ... I "abore it".END ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast