One of the puzzles of modern science is the inability of evolutionary biologists to see through the oversimplification of Darwinian natural selection. It is a morbid irony that T. H. Huxley, on the eve of the publication of Origin, warned Darwin on this point. And yet here we are a century and a half later stuck in the same routine. The appearance of this book is thus a welcome and much needed challenge to the mass delusion of the current culture of Darwin worship.
Apart from its intrinsic merits this book represents an almost symbolic gesture forcing open discussion of evolution among secularists. This critique is from mainstream academic science/philosophy circles, and makes clear its secularist (atheistic) perspective. That should not be necessary, but in the current environment the public tends to assume all critics of evolution are from the Bible Belt, and that is false. This book can't be pegged on any religious or ID rubric, and hopefully the mainstream scientific public can recover from a generation of the Dawkins regime and the Darwin propaganda machine to acknowledge the obvious: Darwin's theory is very probably not right, so let's move on. It is way way overdue for this to happen, and whatever else it has done (or not done) the ID movement is a reminder that culture is going to balk if it is forced to believe forever in Darwinian absurdities through force-feeding by pseudo-scientific distortions. The pity is that secular culture has been unable to break free in similar fashion from the conditioning imposed by this cult of Darwinian scientism. The result is an imporverished secular culture. That can now change, perhaps. But it is almost twenty years since Robert Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection, which was unable to make a dent in the armor of the Darwin stupidoes monopolizing discourse on evolution and intimidating all dissent. Let us hope this fate does not await this book. It is not the last word on the subject of evolution, but it is a start toward Postdarwinism. The courage to produce this book, sure to be given the 'treatment', is commendable.
I find the authors' refusal to hype another theory at the end commendable. As Wesson warned twenty years ago, after the Darwin pipedream there is no second pipedream in the form of a keep-it-simple-stupid 'theory' for science grunts.
Must read, despite its fairly stiff learning curve. Maybe Darwin groupies can be cured of their laziness with this book and do some hard thinking for once.
The book opens with a unique new argument comparing the case of Skinnerian behaviorism to that of the Darwinian selectionist scenario. Once pointed out the comparison is devastatingly apt, and we can only hope that this book can 'do a Chomsky' on the out-of-date reductionist (crypto-behaviorist) junk science of Darwin.
Apart from its intrinsic merits this book represents an almost symbolic gesture forcing open discussion of evolution among secularists. This critique is from mainstream academic science/philosophy circles, and makes clear its secularist (atheistic) perspective. That should not be necessary, but in the current environment the public tends to assume all critics of evolution are from the Bible Belt, and that is false. This book can't be pegged on any religious or ID rubric, and hopefully the mainstream scientific public can recover from a generation of the Dawkins regime and the Darwin propaganda machine to acknowledge the obvious: Darwin's theory is very probably not right, so let's move on. It is way way overdue for this to happen, and whatever else it has done (or not done) the ID movement is a reminder that culture is going to balk if it is forced to believe forever in Darwinian absurdities through force-feeding by pseudo-scientific distortions. The pity is that secular culture has been unable to break free in similar fashion from the conditioning imposed by this cult of Darwinian scientism. The result is an imporverished secular culture. That can now change, perhaps. But it is almost twenty years since Robert Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection, which was unable to make a dent in the armor of the Darwin stupidoes monopolizing discourse on evolution and intimidating all dissent. Let us hope this fate does not await this book. It is not the last word on the subject of evolution, but it is a start toward Postdarwinism. The courage to produce this book, sure to be given the 'treatment', is commendable.
I find the authors' refusal to hype another theory at the end commendable. As Wesson warned twenty years ago, after the Darwin pipedream there is no second pipedream in the form of a keep-it-simple-stupid 'theory' for science grunts.
Must read, despite its fairly stiff learning curve. Maybe Darwin groupies can be cured of their laziness with this book and do some hard thinking for once.
6 comments:
I can't help but wonder what it is about Darwinian Evolution that annoys and upsets so many people.
From what I know of it, it comes across as a very reasonable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
"...current culture of Darwin worship"
How creationists see Darwin worship anywhere baffles me entirely, when evolutionists can look at the same population and see a culture of ignorance and bible worship. What is it about human nature that makes us want to believe that 'the enemy' surrounds us?
I haven't read the book, but its basic premise, that natural selection, and, by extension, microevolution, does not occur, is fatally flawed. (unless you would like some 1970 flu vaccine?)
what it is about Darwinian Evolution that annoys and upsets so many people.
For me, the annoyance is much like the annoyance I have with Microsoft Word. It's garbage that is considered by too many people to be the defacto industry standard, and a person just hates to see that happen.
it comes across as a very reasonable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth
It's somewhat reasonable, but to me it has too many loose ends to be compelling.
How creationists see Darwin worship anywhere baffles me entirely
Are you saying this reviewer is a creationist, or that the book's authors are, or are you just making a general statement?
I think the reviewer has in mind the recent hullabaloo surrounding the 150th anniversary of TOoS rather than any worshipfulness in larger society, where Darwinism is not widely respected (to larger society's credit).
its basic premise, that natural selection, and, by extension, microevolution
Neither have I, but I doubt they contend that microevolution does not occur. I also doubt they say natural selection doesn't occur, just that it can't account for the diversity we observe.
LB said: It's garbage that is considered by too many people to be the defacto industry standard, and a person just hates to see that happen.
I think it's the 'industry standard' because there's a great deal of evidence to support it - and that the opposing theories just don't stack up against it.
LB said: It's somewhat reasonable, but to me it has too many loose ends to be compelling.
Such as?
"or are you just making a general statement?"
Yep. Just generalizing.
From glancing over a few reviews, I got the impression that its main point was that natural selection is incapable of selecting. Perhaps that isn't what the book is trying to say.
Such as?
In my reading, which I admit is on a popular level (Panda's Thumb, The Blind Watchmaker, etc.), I'm told, for example, of how the eye was formed from a light-sensitive patch which, over time developed all the complex features of the modern mammalian eye. No evidence is given to support the theory, but I am supposed to be convinced by a speculative story. I'm told that minor modifications in beak sizes and moth coloration, for example, should be all the evidence I need to accept that such small changes, given time, would accumulate to produce vast changes. But this is just more unsupported anti-empirical speculation.
But these are just general gripes. Something more specific might help to make my perspective clear. I had the idea of going through "The Blind Watchmaker" again and, for each one of his examples, posting what I think are the loose ends. This would take a lot of time, but it might be interesting. Would anyone be up for that? Do you have a copy of that book?
the opposing theories just don't stack up against it
Should I accept Darwinian Evolution over my own objections simply because I don't have alternative? I don't think so." I don't know" is a valid option. "I'm holding out for a more logical proposal" is a valid option.
What opposing theories are you aware of? Creationism and ID are not the only competitors to Darwinism.
Post a Comment