You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of
evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife
with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and
almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on
the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the
wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry.
Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of
any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a
prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism.
That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to
many faulty conclusions.
To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you
are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was
formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You
accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that
scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist -
that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive
movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are
valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally
rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a naturalistic explanation, it
does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't science to be about the search for
the truth and the truth is wider than Darwinian dogma. In this sense,
Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion because people adhere to its precepts
by faith without question, all afraid to question it because they ran the risk
of being "excommunicated" from the field.
My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD science
out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least make
someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not the"hard
fact-based" science that it claims to be.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical
characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes much
to the confusion of the debate.
What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of
evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you
seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic
points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for
example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics
altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the
scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that
have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity.
I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I have
not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're saying and
feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such matters, even
if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even less in a
position to tell physicists that they are confused about the field as a whole.
I find myself in a similar situation with regard to evolutionary biology;
having a vague sense of the limits of my understanding, I am happy to defer to
them on the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Here we are talking about
the hard sciences and not literature or the social sciences.
What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite understanding
of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of the field and call
(Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do you propose a world in
which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields has no place? Without having
obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and attained recognized mastery of the
field, how is one to distinguish between an awareness of fundamental
difficulties in the assumptions of the field, on one hand, and one's own lack
of knowledge of the experimental basis of its conclusions, and the specific
details of those conclusions, on the other?
Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of your position.
Eric
