December 21, 2015 | David F. Coppedge

Uncontested Consensus Is Bad for Science

Darwinian evolution is a prime example of how an unchallenged consensus leads to unbridled speculation and absurdity.

Because “Big Science” allows no critique of Darwinian evolution in their journals (and news media follow their lead), crazy ideas regularly appear in the media with no debate. This is bad for science. Need examples?

Aliens May Be Polar Bear-Sized (Space.com): No one has ever seen an alien. One would think observation is the first stage in science. Why, then, does Space.com allow a scientist to survey Earth’s animals and extrapolate that to outer space? It’s clear from Fergus Simpson’s “Big Alien Theory” website that he is an evolutionist. How anyone could test his “theory” is left unexplained.

Is evolution more intelligent than we thought? (Science Daily): Watson and Szathmáry are not exactly slouches in evolution circles, but they got away with ascribing intelligence to a blind, purposeless, aimless, natural theory. Imagine what a debater could do with this!—if debate were allowed.

BM-DarwinBaloney-smProfessor Richard Watson says new research shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.

By unifying the theory of evolution (which shows how random variation and selection is sufficient to provide incremental adaptation) with learning theories (which show how incremental adaptation is sufficient for a system to exhibit intelligent behaviour), this research shows that it is possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviours as learning systems (including neural networks).

In an opinion paper, published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Professors Watson and Eörs Szathmáry, from the Parmenides Foundation in Munich, explain how formal analogies can be used to transfer specific models and results between the two theories to solve several important evolutionary puzzles.

Professor Watson says: “Darwin’s theory of evolution describes the driving process, but learning theory is not just a different way of describing what Darwin already told us. It expands what we think evolution is capable of. It shows that natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving.

Because intelligent design theory is forbidden in Big Science circles, these two evolutionists are free to take evidence for design and put it in Charles Darwin’s trophy case.

How anti-evolution bills evolve: An evolutionary biologist has analyzed political opposition to evolution and found it has evolved (Science Daily): Nick Matzke, a long time Darwin defender and enemy of intelligent design, makes an absurdly illogical proposition that creationism evolves (which, if that were true to mindless Darwinian evolution theory, would undermine his own brain as well). At Evolution News & Views, John West complains that Matzke likely misused taxpayer funds for his latest attack. But since Matzke is a card-carrying member of the Darwin lobby, will he be called out for this indiscretion? Unlikely. The D-Merit Badge provides immunity from prosecution, so Science Daily parroted his ideas without any fear of embarrassment in the court of public opinion, because no Darwin skeptic will get equal time.

Scientists localize the Christmas spirit in the brain (Medical Xpress): If the human mind is an illusion from the physical brain (a belief by most materialists), then it may seem logical to evolutionists that our deepest feelings and urges are “nothing but” excited neurons. If true, where is the “science spirit” localized? It’s a self-refuting idea, but this science site presents this nutty idea uncritically.

What computers won’t tell you about ecological and evolutionary dynamics: Surprising connections between computer science and biology (Science Daily): These scientists think that evolution is like a computer program. “The investigators found the rather unexpected proof that these fundamental questions in ecology and evolution can be precisely characterized by specific classes of complexity theory, as though these evolutionary processes would mimic aspects of computation.” Computers are built and operated by intelligent design, not evolution.

Education: How to win at evolution (Nature): Stuart West has fun evaluating 3 video games based on evolutionary theory—apparently oblivious to the truth that the Darwinian “Stuff Happens Law” makes winning or losing irrelevant. “Evolution by natural selection is like a game: the winners are the organisms best at passing on their genes,” he says. A little thought makes it clear that the very concept of “winning” requires an intelligent evaluator; material bodies are incapable of caring about wins or losses. Whatever happens, happens. But instead of thinking consistently about this, he used the world’s most prestigious science journal—and children—to push this twisted form of Darwinism as if this is how evolution really operates. “We (two 12 year olds, a 16 year old, three graduate students, two postdocs and three professors) tested three: Evolution by North Star Games, Evolution: Random Mutations by Rightgames and Terra Evolution: Tree of Life by Mindwarrior Games. Our mission? To discover their potential for ‘edutainment’ — and as last-minute holiday gifts.”

It’s also clear that the games pervert Darwinian theory: “You fashion your species,” he says of the Evolution game, proving that the players are actually role-playing god. Similarly, with Terra Evolution, “You build a deck of cards allowing you to evolve complex organisms, fossilize others or attack rival players with catastrophes such as viruses or asteroids.” Thus, West takes games that depend on intelligent design, but twists them into Christmas gifts for Darwin and his grinchy elves. Clear-thinking critics are left out in the cold.

Darwinism is bad for science. Any undebated consensus is. If these ideologues had to stand up to critical attack by philosophers of science and Darwin skeptics in fair debate, they would be laughed off the stage for their shallow thinking and unbridled speculation. The Darwinians are like radical muslims who have imposed a kind of Sharia Law on science: convert, pay a tax, or die. Darwin skeptics of all stripes are excluded from the Big Science institutions, and courts have long prohibited them from sharing alternatives in schools (see the ENV series on the 10 years since Dover and John West’s summary). So not only do the Darwin skeptics have to raise their own money for research and education, they are forced to pay, through their taxes, for the institutions that persecute them. It’s an unholy theocracy that stifles clear thinking and actual progress in understanding the world. Let’s call it Darwin Sharia and add it to the Darwin Dictionary.

 

 

 

 

(Visited 144 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

  • lux113 says:

    “Is evolution more intelligent than we thought?”

    So I should have predicted this. This seems to be the long term “evolution” of Darwinism.

    I’ve watched as people claim there is no evidence of God, as they look to all the marvels of the universe and one by one move them from the “God” category over to the “nature” category.

    Nature just does that.

    A statement that is amazingly similar to what they claim Christians say as their answer to everything: “God did it”. For them, it’s just “nature did it”, and no real further explanation is needed. Now they’re even usurping intelligent design into the powers of “nature”, because why not? Their omnipotent “Nature” (capital N) can already create butterflies and planets, our entire biosphere of life – entire galaxies, human consciousness (etc.), so it’s only a small leap for them to claim “Nature” also learns and gets better at doing it.

    Honestly, once this nonsense gets accepted by the scientific consensus, there will be no real way for the ID crowd to argue with them. It’s the perfect plan.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.