Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you give an example of how science used to consider these causes, how it no longer does, and explain, in unambiguous language, why they need to be considered to have trustworthy data?
 
  1. Point out where I have made an error in describing buffalo’s post.
  2. Your very obvious truncation of what I posted is very obvious. Just the same way it is obvious that the Bible says “There is no God.”
rossum
 
" Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered… onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin’s theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object. The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic." — Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, New Scientist 2/03/2010
 
Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are NOT the only two voices in the wilderness. There are many other scientists who go on to give blow by blow knock-downs of various aspects of the Darwin account. The fact that @rossum and others don’t admit knowing of these is telling.

I will shortly start to introduce some of these antagonists and their demolition of Darwin’s theory, but meanwhile thanks for the critical Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini link.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
" Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered… onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin’s theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object. The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic." — Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, New Scientist 2/03/2010
Click to expand...
Right, all you need to do is look at the pretty pictures they’ve come up with, and you should be convinced evolution is true. :roll_eyes:
 
Explain why you think the pictures prove evolution
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are NOT the only two voices in the wilderness. There are many other scientists who go on to give blow by blow knock-downs of various aspects of the Darwin account. The fact that @rossum and others don’t admit knowing of these is telling.

I will shortly start to introduce some of these antagonists and their demolition of Darwin’s theory, but meanwhile thanks for the critical Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini link.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting an atheist philosopher’s opinion on a scientific matter? Can we expect something from your butcher next?

Anyway, this gets you a Buffalo 6:

“At the outset (of their book) the authors state their atheism and commitment to naturalistic explanations, and add that they accept evolution and common descent…”

So, you agree with these guys that there is a scientific basis to evolution? Good to know.

Don’t you read the stuff to which you link?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Someone flagged the post ‘For the want of a nail…’ and had it removed?

Uh?
 
Do you or don’t you accept that Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini said, “The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Do you or don’t you accept that Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini said, “The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
Yes. I absolutely accept that they said it.

You do know that they support evolution 100%? They just disagree with some of the methodology. Which in the first instance is nothing out of the ordinary by any means. And secondly, they are the views (in Fodor’s case) of an atheist philosopher. You do pick the strangest bedfellows.

So can we take it that you and Bufallo support their views?
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Someone flagged the post ‘For the want of a nail…’ and had it removed?

Uh?
Click to expand...
How about the butterfly effect? A butterfly flaps its wings and a few months later there is a huge storm on the other side of the world. buffalo’s post effectively denied chaos theory, where a very small change in (name removed by moderator)ut can have a big change in output.

rossum
 
As Jerry Fodor (an atheist philosopher) has pointed out, natural selection is an utterly empty concept. It does no work; it explains nothing. Evolution is driven by natural history and genetic and phenotypic constraint. “Natural selection” adds nothing to our understanding of the process. Of course things change and survivors survive. Any real understanding of change in populations entails understanding the natural history of the changes and the biological constraints imposed by nature. Some of this evolutionary change is best explained as accidental. Some is best explained as design, and the conjunction of accident and design is where evolutionary change takes place. “Natural selection” is meaningless junk science — dismal logic put to the service of atheism. Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism in modern times, except perhaps for consumer culture, for which Darwin bears some responsibility. “Survival of the fittest” casts a scientific imprimatur on acquisition as a life-goal. Michael Egnor
 
buffalo said:
As Jerry Fodor (an atheist philosopher) has pointed out, natural selection is an utterly empty concept. It does no work; it explains nothing.
Click to expand...
Right, that’s why I can never get clear answer on whats causing all this “die out” to happen to all these so-called transitional organisms.Evolution must just sent out a memo telling them to all go extinct at the same time. 🙂
 
buffalo said:
As Jerry Fodor (an atheist philosopher) has pointed out, natural selection is an utterly empty concept. It does no work; it explains nothing. Evolution is driven by natural history and genetic and phenotypic constraint. “Natural selection” adds nothing to our understanding of the process. Of course things change and survivors survive. Any real understanding of change in populations entails understanding the natural history of the changes and the biological constraints imposed by nature. Some of this evolutionary change is best explained as accidental. Some is best explained as design, and the conjunction of accident and design is where evolutionary change takes place. “Natural selection” is meaningless junk science — dismal logic put to the service of atheism. Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism in modern times, except perhaps for consumer culture, for which Darwin bears some responsibility. “Survival of the fittest” casts a scientific imprimatur on acquisition as a life-goal. Michael Egnor
Click to expand...
Is that the Discovery Institute’s Egnor? The paediatrician?

‘What Egnor doesn’t understand is that natural selection, a subject of which he has no experience, which he hasn’t studied and which he fails to comprehend even at a basic scientific level, is such an accepted concept that to deny it is more a reflection of the paucity of his knowledge rather than anything approaching a reasoned argument’. Dave Tribbet, butcher, Dave’s Meat Emporium, Bondi.

The guy who fixed my roof had something to say about it as well. I’ll post it when he sends it to me.
 
argumentum ad hominem.
You lose, Bradski.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
argumentum ad hominem.
You lose, Bradski.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
Hey, that’s not my view. That’s Dave the butcher’s view. I’ll let him know later when I pick up my lamp chops. But surely he has as much to say about the subject as Egnor? As far as I know, neither of them has any qualifications whatsoever in the subject matter.

And in passing, can I ask a simple question? You deny that evolution occurs. Yet you support the views of someone like Fodor who is absolutely convinced that it does. Why? It completely bemuses me.

It’s as if you want to deny that Santa exists and then link to an article that suggests he is not as fat and as jolly as we’ve all been made to believe. Surely you can see the ridiculous position you put yourself in?
 
Last edited:
Argumentum ad hominem.
You lose again,
Bradski.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Argumentum ad hominem.
You lose again,
Bradski.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
Hard to have an argumentum ad hominem when you don’t make an argumentum. It was a question: Do you support Fodor’s views?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top