[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Media Flips Over Tulsi & Matt Gaetz, Biden & Trump Take A Pic, & Famous People Leave Twitter!

4 arrested in California car insurance scam: 'Clearly a human in a bear suit'

Silk Road Founder Trusts Trump To 'Honor His Pledge' For Commutation

"You DESERVED to LOSE the Senate, the House, and the Presidency!" - Jordan Peterson

"Grand Political Theatre"; FBI Raids Home Of Polymarket CEO; Seize Phone, Electronics

Schoolhouse Limbo: How Low Will Educators Go To Better Grades?

BREAKING: U.S. Army Officers Made a Desperate Attempt To Break Out of The Encirclement in KURSK

Trumps team drawing up list of Pentagon officers to fire, sources say

Israeli Military Planning To Stay in Gaza Through 2025

Hezbollah attacks Israeli army's Tel Aviv HQ twice in one day

People Can't Stop Talking About Elon's Secret Plan For MSNBC And CNN Is Totally Panicking

Tucker Carlson UNLOADS on Diddy, Kamala, Walz, Kimmel, Rich Girls, Conspiracy Theories, and the CIA!

"We have UFO technology that enables FREE ENERGY" Govt. Whistleblowers

They arrested this woman because her son did WHAT?

Parody Ad Features Company That Offers to Cryogenically Freeze Liberals for Duration of TrumpÂ’s Presidency

Elon and Vivek BEGIN Reforming Government, Media LOSES IT

Dear Border Czar: This Nonprofit Boasts A List Of 400 Companies That Employ Migrants

US Deficit Explodes: Blowout October Deficit Means 2nd Worst Start To US Fiscal Year On Record

Gaetz Resigns 'Effective Immediately' After Trump AG Pick; DC In Full Blown Panic

MAHA MEME

noone2222 and John Bolton sitting in a tree K I S S I N G

Donald Trump To Help Construct The Third Temple?

"The Elites Want To ROB Us of Our SOVEREIGNTY!" | Robert F Kennedy

Take Your Money OUT of THESE Banks NOW! - Jim Rickards

Trump Taps Tulsi Gabbard As Director Of National Intelligence

DC In Full Blown Panic After Trump Picks Matt Gaetz For Attorney General

Cleveland Clinic Warns Wave of Mass Deaths Will Wipe Out Covid-Vaxxed Within ‘5 Years’

Judah-ism is as Judah-ism does

Danger ahead: November 2024, Boston Dynamics introduces a fully autonomous "Atlas" robot. Robot humanoids are here.

Trump names [Fox News host] Pete Hegseth as his Defense secretary


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Bethell vs. Darwin
Source: The Wanderer
URL Source: http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2005/w051201.shtml#bethell
Published: Dec 1, 2005
Author: Joseph Sobran
Post Date: 2005-12-27 09:36:14 by Phaedrus
Keywords: Bethell, Darwin
Views: 72
Comments: 18

We are now battered by so many confusing political issues traveling under the name of “science” — having to do with global warming, nuclear power, AIDS, stem-cell research, cloning, endangered species, and the teaching of evolution in public schools — that the layman may be tempted to shrug it all off and leave such matters to the experts. Well, don’t. Just grab a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (Regnery) and enjoy a good read. And some good laughs.

The author is my old friend Tom Bethell, a masterly writer who lights up daunting questions with simple explanations, apt analogies, startling facts, and often hilarious understatements. His book is in no way “against” science; on the contrary, it’s deeply respectful of scientific method, properly applied. What it exposes is the abuse of that method by various charlatans who seek political power, publicity, and government contracts. Not to mention the pleasure of duping gullible journalists and causing mass hysteria.

We are currently being urged, as Bethell notes, to panic over global warming. Unless the government enacts totalitarian measures pronto, one pundit warned, “by the end of the decade our rivers may have reached the boiling point.” That was written in 1970.

Such preposterous prophecies are now routine; social pressures play a role too and, Bethell reports, the magazine Science has rejected articles by distinguished scientists who dissent from the fashionable fear-mongering. (Notice that these allegedly imminent crises always require more government, never less.)

Like what passes for merely factual history, what passes for objective science is heavily infected by propaganda. Many things we hear every day — so often that we assume they must be established truths — are, in fact, nonsense.

The book culminates in a lively examination of that greatest of scientific errors, Darwin’s theory of evolution. In fairness to Darwin, he couldn’t have foreseen some of the difficulties modern biochemistry would present; nevertheless, he should have known better. Maybe it’s just my own narrow mind, or perhaps my deeper mammalian bigotry, but try as I may, I have never been able to perceive much resemblance between the whale and the mosquito. Even if they were the same size it would elude me.

It comes as a relief to learn that this is not a mere eccentricity of my own; Bethell explains why even some sophisticated biologists share it. The eye of the octopus is very much like the human eye, for example, yet nobody thinks men and octopi had a common ancestor with eyes; did both creatures just happen to acquire such complex organs accidentally and independently? Why is “intelligent design” out of the question?

Not only is the theory, as Bethell shows, at once tautological and incoherent; the fossil record is so devoid of evidence for evolution that the “proof” has had to be supplied by desperate speculation, logical fallacies, poor parallels, hopeful predictions, wacky experiments (on fruit flies), empty rhetoric — even outright fraud: Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos became notorious among scientists. (One advantage of experimenting on fruit flies, by the way, is that “the animal rights people don’t object.”)

If you still think evolutionism is “science,” your belief won’t survive this marvelously incisive book. And the blazing coda, on the National Institutes of Health, will convince you that we need a constitutional separation of science and state.

The book is attractively designed, but the real treat is the writing. Few men write expository prose as fine as Tom Bethell’s, every word measured, never a word wasted, always elegant in its simplicity, and so compact of expression that it almost defies summary. The same can be said of C.S. Lewis and George Orwell, but not many others.


Poster Comment:

Boldings are mine ... as science, Evolution is bunk and it's high time that this was acknowledged.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Phaedrus (#0)

What I'd like to see is the phrase "I don't know" become of common use again, especially in science. When it comes right down to it, that phrase is one of the hallmarks of an open and enquiring mind. People cling too readily and desperately to "theories" especially those that suit their philosophical or political agenda (like evolution) even if the theory has enormous gaping holes in it, as evolution does.

When it comes right down to it, I don't know how the universe, or earth, or man or animals came into being. Not on any scientific level, that is. But I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know".

mehitable  posted on  2005-12-27   10:35:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: mehitable (#1)

Bumping "I don't know". Yes, a little humility would be nice ...

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-27   10:51:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: mehitable (#1)

I don't know how the universe, or earth, or man or animals came into being. Not on any scientific level, that is. But I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know".

Ditto here, but I would add one more thing:

The current "options" from which we may chose are also unacceptable as they fail to fit the available evidence.

Evolution is fine as a *process of how things go forward* - speciation has been observed - but cannot explain a "beginning" to anyone's satisfaction at present.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   1:12:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: mehitable (#1)

What I'd like to see is the phrase "I don't know" become of common use again, especially in science. When it comes right down to it, that phrase is one of the hallmarks of an open and enquiring mind. People cling too readily and desperately to "theories" especially those that suit their philosophical or political agenda (like evolution) even if the theory has enormous gaping holes in it, as evolution does.

When it comes right down to it, I don't know how the universe, or earth, or man or animals came into being. Not on any scientific level, that is. But I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know".

Well said.

This subliminal advertising is brought to you by The HonkeyMotherFucker Corporation for Internet Blogging ©2000-2010 all rights reserved worldwide

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-12-28   1:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: mirage (#3)

Evolution is fine as a *process of how things go forward* - speciation has been observed - but cannot explain a "beginning" to anyone's satisfaction at present.

Excellent point, and one that is NEVER addressed. It all had to start somehow, somewhere, no matter how things have developed over time.

mehitable  posted on  2005-12-28   11:40:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: mirage (#3)

Evolution is fine as a *process of how things go forward* - speciation has been observed - but cannot explain a "beginning" to anyone's satisfaction at present.

I'm not aware (i.e. I don't believe) that speciation has been observed. Would you please enlighten me?

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-28   11:44:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Phaedrus (#6)

I'm not aware (i.e. I don't believe) that speciation has been observed. Would you please enlighten me?

This TalkOrigins archive has some observed examples with citation and documentation in the event that you'd like to check their facts. A "speciation event" is said to have occured when a segment of a population can no longer produce offspring with the original stock. "Races" can interbreed but "species" cannot produce offspring which can reproduce (like mules) and often times, "species" cannot interbreed at all.

Examples (from the FAQ webpage) follow:

Example 1:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example 2:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example 3:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example 4:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

These are just a few. You might want to check the webpage for additional details. Most of the speciation events involve plants.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   15:52:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: mirage (#7)

A "speciation event" is said to have occured when a segment of a population can no longer produce offspring with the original stock.

Thanks. I'm sorry, but this seems to me to be a highly deficient way of testing the validity of the Theory of Evolution that is heavily dependent upon definitions. I would think it necessary that a new species be not only able to breed among themselves but would exhibit new, different and "advantageous" attributes. There is no indication that the "new" species is in any way different from the old save that they cannot breed with them.

I'm sure you see the point. How does this highly technical definition show that a mosquito becomes something else, let alone a bat or an elephant?

And I've "deconstructed" some of the Talk Origins material in past years and have little respect for it, to say the very least.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-28   16:25:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Phaedrus (#8)

How does this highly technical definition show that a mosquito becomes something else, let alone a bat or an elephant?

It doesn't have to. When something like that happens, it will be observed. The important thing about Evolution is that it is a process and we have not yet observed all parts of it. Over time, eventually, there will be an event that is observed.

A process is made of sub-parts, each with their own beginning and end. We are still mapping out how change occurs. We know THAT change occurs, we just don't know with absolute 100% certainty to what extent. The "change happens" argument has been proven to most people's satisfaction. The "extent of change" argument has not been proven to most people's satisfaction.

Just like nobody saw the Big Bang or Creation, people still take stock in it, right? For me, Evolution is an ongoing process that explains how things are expected to *work going forward* in a satisfactory manner. Nobody has yet to see a fruit fly become an elephant, which would be highly unlikely anyhow, but, assuming everything lines up properly, changes in an organism can be tracked over time. Likely there will be surprises and things that nobody thought of. That data will have to be factored in as well.

Evolution does not, however, give a beginning other than "common ancestor" which scientists are attempting to prove using gene sequencing (which should provide some rather shocking data) and there is no satisfactory explanation other than "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" from any of a bazillion possible sources currently. One may as well just throw a dart at a list and pick one.

As for the validity of things; that's why we check sources and look at things critically. Everyone has a tendency to get excited and cut corners or make bogus claims. Figuring out when that happens and what is wrong with those claims is a good way to figure out what is true and what is BS.

Is that sufficient?

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   17:10:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: mirage (#9)

Q: How does this highly technical definition show that a mosquito becomes something else, let alone a bat or an elephant?

A: It doesn't have to. When something like that happens, it will be observed. The important thing about Evolution is that it is a process and we have not yet observed all parts of it. Over time, eventually, there will be an event that is observed ...

Is that sufficient?

To summarize without exaggerating inordinately, while it has not been shown that one species evolves into another, you take it on faith that it will be shown. I'm sorry, mirage, this is not science.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-28   19:33:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Phaedrus (#10)

while it has not been shown that one species evolves into another, you take it on faith that it will be shown

The evidence indicates that it will be shown. That IS science. What has not been shown *conclusively* is the proof.

Remember how the scientific method works. This is the data collection stage.

If it is shown to be false, then it is false. That's how it works. Give it some time. We may all be surprised by the results, whatever they are, but they will be the results regardless of what anyone thinks.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   19:37:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: mirage (#11)

The evidence indicates that it will be shown ... This is the data collection stage ... Give it some time ...

Origin, I believe, was published in 1859, 146 years ago, plenty of time IMO.

We are going to agree to disagree. That the more complex forms appeared in later geologic times is indisputable and gives the appearance, at least, of "progress" and it is the extent to which I agree with Darwinism.

Beyond that, the evidence contradicts, to wit: there is nothing to show convincingly that life "evolved" from non-life (not that it didn't happen, just that science requires that the "how" be shown), no clear evolutionary "tree" has ever been shown (the biologists currentyly engage in an activity they call "tree building"), no credible evolutionary mechanism (mutution has been shown to be uniformly destructive of biological information, never creative of new forms or functions, and "chance" as an explanation, irrespective to time scale, is ludicrous as science), "natural selection" is, essentially, wordplay insofar as it can only be the passive environment and all the multitudinous life forms must be taken as a given, species have shown a great tendency to remain virtually unchanged over millions of years, not to change and not to change in any creative way.

In a nutshell, that's it. One must have enduring faith to believe in Darwinism. It may be philosophy but it's not science. That philosophy would be Materialism and so-called Humanism.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-29   8:34:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: mirage (#11)

With apologies for the typos ...

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-29   8:47:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Phaedrus (#12)

Actually, this way of looking at things predates the New Testament. The Ancient Greeks called it "Naturalism."

Modern day Evolutionary Theory bears little resemblance to Darwin's original work, so it is hardly fair to call it "Darwinism" - that was left behind quite some time ago.

"Natural Selection" is not exactly wordplay. It simply means that the strong survive and the weak die off.

For my part, there is enough in there for me to say "It explains much about how things work." It does not give enough for a beginning and we are simply not likely to ever have that. While science can take some pretty good guesses back to the first millisecond after the Big Bang, it cannot explain the primary cause for the Big Bang.

So, it is safe to say, there are things we agree on and things we disagree on.

If you think 150 years of progress isn't enough, then, should we roll things back to the Dark Ages and let the Clergy take control again? Nobody would want to live in such a world. So, let the scientists keep working, and let us evaluate what they come up with.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-29   21:50:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Phaedrus (#12)

Two quick examples, then I'll restate my case concisely.

If mutation is always harmful, then how is the AIDS virus able to mutate seemingly constantly and still remain viable? A virus *is* classified as a life form.

A good example of Natural Selection is multi-drug resistant TB. The bacteria that were killed by penicillin did not reproduce. The ones that did are now a nightmare to modern medicine. This is a trait in the bacteria that has been passed on over generations, thus causing a change across the entire "species" of bacteria.

Now, my case again in a nutshell:

Evolution explains fairly well *how things work* but does not give an explanation of *how things got started*. That, we do not know with certainty and are not likely to. It is pretty much anyone's guess as to the ultimate origins and one explanation is as good as another. People will pick the one that best suits their particular needs and/or beliefs.

On that, I think we can both agree - and that is all I've tried to put across.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-29   22:28:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: mirage (#14)

If you think 150 years of progress isn't enough, then, should we roll things back to the Dark Ages and let the Clergy take control again? Nobody would want to live in such a world. So, let the scientists keep working, and let us evaluate what they come up with.

Is this your concern? In the world of big ideas the Protestants have all gone secular and the Catholics are barely holding their own. IMO there is no way we regress to domination by Clergy. That said, we should never forget that Christianity itself is responsible for the flowering of Western science and civilization.

As to Darwinism, it has failed the evidentiary test and should be allowed to die. It lives on in rhetoric only and only because there remain those who feel there must be an intellectual, secular counter-force to the ethos and domination of Christianity IMO. But, again, it's not science.

As I said, we will agree to disagree.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-30   9:36:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: mirage (#15)

If mutation is always harmful, then how is the AIDS virus able to mutate seemingly constantly and still remain viable? A virus *is* classified as a life form.

Genetic variability has always been part of the natural world. Look at the variety of dogs. But they remain dogs. You cannot assume that such allowable variations generate new species. It must be shown to be science and all such attempts have failed.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-30   9:41:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: mirage (#15)

Evolution explains fairly well *how things work* but does not give an explanation of *how things got started*. That, we do not know with certainty and are not likely to. It is pretty much anyone's guess as to the ultimate origins and one explanation is as good as another. People will pick the one that best suits their particular needs and/or beliefs.

I think I've shown above (at #12) that beyond the vague idea of progress, Darwinism has failed to produce the evidence in support of its claims and, in fact, the evidence contradicts. Having spent years on FR immersed in this debate, I don't expect to convince you otherwise, but once you rule the assumptions out and allow the evidence in, Darwinism doesn't stand up, as science, irrespective of anything to do with purported "creationism". While one may reject Special Creation for whatever reasons, an unsupported belief in Darwinism is no better, and in some ways worse IMO, because it ignores the crucial necessity that any scientific claim be substantiated by the evidence.

I think that there is a radical core of Darwinists that exhibit all the traits of True Believers and that, in this sense only, they represent a religious counter-force to Christianity. Were this not so, why the emphasis, by them, on Darwinism vs. Creationism? This constant drum-beat is IMO a dodge to avoiding the debate on Darwinism As Science.

Well, enough said. I do think, though, that with the ongoing demise of Darwinism we will not see a "ReChristianized" West, which is IMO the Darwinists greatest fear. There's a lot to explain as to what I mean by this but that's far beyond the scope of our discussion.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-30   10:05:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]