01st of October, 2013
I have so enjoyed this video, that I got into a debate about it where I came out swinging a stick, pretty much, for a certain good correspondent of mine.
The people who are initially very sure, when challenged—correctly or not—turn out to be incapable of justifying their position. They can neither spot a fallacy nor give a response. It is not that evolution is false, because it is not. It is not necessarily that their explanation of it (neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory) is wrong, even though it is. Rather, it is the fact that the presumed credentialeds can be cornered is very noteworthy.
They pleaded biased cutting, but I can assure you that it is not the case, because I am well-acquainted with these productions. They have done very many interviews, many of which are publicly-available on the Internet in their entirety. This is the first time that anybody has complained of being misrepresented by biased cutting. For an example of what the cuts keep or reject, see this pair of short videos.
That kind of “misrepresentation” is what these guys do. Let’s get past that extremely common, extremely effective, but in this case insufficient excuse. The fact of the matter is, as the short movie showed:
- Many people think they can convince an evidentialist/empiricist that the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is true. This is demonstrated to be false in the case of the credentialed people there. I have always maintained that, contrary to popular opinion, Dr. Cornelius Hunter has never been disproven! Even worse than an evidentialist/empiricist is the guy who does applied combinatorics (like myself). This is why I have a proof that a Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot be proven (whether or not it is true); therefore it cannot be part of consistent and/or complete theory of anything. Even the beliefs of the learned are a “mean-average” of their cultural biases, not really reflections of the truth.
- Many people think neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory’s claims have been proven. Au contraire, survival of the fittest was never a claim Darwin made. In The Origins of the Species, he actually mentioned “survival of the fittest” as a quote of a farmer. Farmers everywhere already knew and used survival-of-the-fittest; Darwin used to hang around breeders of dogs and plants. What Darwin theorised—and which is wrong—is that this observed stuff which is not his theory, the stuff that the breeders around him are doing, that this will be shown to be the same process by which the species came about. This is wrong, of course, in a way you will understand this way: breeding is Newtonian, while phylogenesis is quantum. The Darwinian lie is that “all is Newtonian.” Do you understand it now? I know, the creationists are poor at explaining it. Jerry Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini got very close in their last controversial book together, but they were blinded by their commitment to the survival of Darwinism—since they are atheists.
- Biology is in more crisis than physics. Like most of us modern specialists, you only know of the crisis in one field, while in fact it is everywhere. Hey, nobody really cares about quantum mechanics, so it is not really urgent that people read The Quantum Enigma. But biology has terrifying religious implications, so it is important that people read Signature in the Cell. One of the least-discussed things in the West is how Darwinian Nazism was, so Darwinian that it drove the Soviets away from Mendelian genetics (which they falsely coupled with Darwinism), and Russia opted for an equally-catastrophic Lysenkoism. Why? Because they also thought—correctly—that something like their enemy, Nazism, was implied by an acceptance of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Biology determines who gets to live. Before it is too late, we need to solve the question: who is the way (social organisation), the truth (physics), and the life (biology)?
- Many unrepentant neo-Darwinians said things that, if you take them without a bias in their favour, sound completely stupid. The professor being interview at the sixth minute, the one who says “We’re all fish!” is called PZ Myers. His career is mainly as a pro-Darwinian blogger, which is why it was important to add him to the interviews. His knee-jerk response to anything he suspects to be creationist is to affirm its opposite. This is very common when explanatory systems are weak. Prof. Iain McGilchrist wrote The Master and his Emissary, and in it he covered this with such perfect detail and presentation that it may be the greatest book of the last 300 years. I am serious. So PZ Myers is a typical case of geek. We can be severely wrong, for generations, without ever realising it. One clue to how serious our problem is: most people say “evolution” when they mean “neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.” Imagine where we would be if “physics” meant “Newtonian physics.” Now for evolution, there is a lot of evidence; after all, even the Bible exploits time (“first day”) even before the sun has been created in its account. The day in there is a principle, which God further signifies by the day of the sun, and the discussion of which is another book altogether. In the days of Aristotle, as you know, steady-state theory was all the rage. The Bible was spat on as reprobate for suggesting an evolution (even though certainly not Darwinian, not even like that of Henri-Louis Bergson). These things have now been forgotten, as people castigate the Bible, saying it is reprobate for opposing “evolution” when in fact they mean that it opposes “neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory,” and correctly-so! So there is a lot of evidence for evolution—change over time. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory co-opts it by implying that all evolution is neo-Darwinian, which is a lie. (We don’t eat, decay, get tired, get aroused, or awake by survival of the fittest, even though all these are cases of biological evolution. Did you know the fraud of Ernst Haeckel and why the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” has, like the vestigial organs and the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory itself, undergone repeated epicycle innovation? Unfortunately, only creationists discuss these things, and even then only to people interested in this debate.)
So the truth is that those people whose prestige holds up the lie are themselves in the dark. It is really the case.
Now, in history, a pseudoscience on occasion possesses a people so badly and drives them to craziness, be it bloodletting (due to whose humourist theory of disease the Lancet journal is named), be it Marxism.
For instance: to shout against Monsanto, as the pretenders do, and yet not correct the fundamental mistake of Darwinism, is itself the fundamental mistake. If you re-align people to believing in the Creator, our Father, they will be wise in dealing with the creation, and He will bless their land. We know that illiterate bush people survive well in the forests, and they don’t even have Jesus Christ! We have Jesus Christ; why, if we know our Father, and we know the New Testament, why, if we know that our Father feeds the birds of the air, why would be so concerned that we douse ourselves in toxic pesticides and the like in order to stave off a lack of food on a planet that is not even at half capacity? For instance, instead of looking at nature and seeing a very beautiful, real-time, well-calibrated, and resilient pest control system in the struggle for survival—such that all of creation is for the benefit of the children of God—they look at nature and see the nullification of God. This is the fundamental mistake.