Sunday, March 22, 2009

Trying to make sense of Darwin - Part 1

Just in case you haven't been paying attention, 2009 is the 150th anniversary year of the publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. The only bigger lie ever foisted upon an unsuspecting and largely ignorant public (do I know my Americans or what) is the one upon which Darwin relied for his theory to make sense in the first place. You know, naturalism, materialism, physicalism, the idea that the only things that are real are, well, physical or material, the things that comprise nature.

So I'm thinking about how to advance this discussion, and by that I mean destroy once and for all any pretense of legitimacy for this pernicious evil that passes for received wisdom in the hallowed halls of academia and in the mainstream media. This debate has been raging for at least a century and a half now and I think it's high time for someone to completely trash the intellectual insanity that we call evolutionary theory. I'm so sick of reading the latest from Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, Ernst Mayr (he's been dead for awhile so no nothing new from him) Michael Ruse, Jerry Coyne (his latest book is a real hoot), Victor Stenger (a physicist no less - you'd think of all people they could see through this natural selection bullshit), Barbara Forrest, Eugenie Scott, Ken Brown, Sam Harris, Elliot Sober, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Pinker, and then there is the old stuff from Francis Crick, Jacques Monod, Stephen J. Gould, Theodosius Dobzhansky, etal. I could go on, and on, and on, ALL of these people who can't stop yapping, yapping, yapping about how evolution is true, TRUE, TRUE and just shut up already if you don't think so.

Well, it isn't true. It never has been true and it never will be true. It's nonsense, literally, as in non-sense, i.e. opposed to reason and how it gets such a hearing is almost beyond me. Well look at who we keep electing to run the country and you can believe anything regarding the stupidity of Americans. So at least we have some idea of how this could happen.

So where to begin is the big problem. There are so many holes in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and the new and improved version, natural selection PLUS genetic mutations (mistakes) called the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinian theory. I hate to type out neo-Darwinian because it's a pain so I'll just refer to evolutionary theory from now on as, well, evolution, or for an occasional change, Darwinism. And when I do you'll know that I mean the new kind, natural selection plus genetic mutations.

So before I launch into one of my many rants about how stupid Darwin was and how stupid anyone who listened to him for more than 5 minutes was/is I think I'll take a step back, take a big breath, and pose the following questions:
  • Is the metaphysical foundation of evolution true?
  • Does this foundation provide the proponents of evolution with the explanatory tools they need to explain what they need to explain? (Let's say that I'm trying to explain the game of football to you but I keep talking about base hits and outs and innings. In other words, I only have a baseball vocabulary to explain football. So can I EVER explain football like that? No.)
  • If it's not true (hint: it's not), then how do I know that it's not?
There are so many things to explain and it's so important and I'm trying to write THE damn book about what a crock evolution is and thus forever silence these ignorant people who assault our intellects with this swill called Darwinism so let me sort of ramble a little here and try to assemble my thoughts into some sort of coherent whole.

So I think the following questions need to be on our list of questions to which I will then be obligated to provide crystal clear, rational, iron-clad, water-tight, true, and insightful explanations.
  • What needs to be explained?
  • Why does it need to be explained? Maybe you would ask that question this way: SO WHAT?!! What difference does any of this make??? Who cares about metaphysics or philosophy or first principles anyway? Let me propose an easy thought experiment to help you decide that right now. If you jumped off of a very, very, very tall building would it matter if you were flying or falling? And when would it matter?
  • What makes for a good explanation or a good theory? In other words, how in the hell can I (you) know that you (Me) are correct, being a non-scientist with zero big-shot scientific credentials (and what a lot of nerve you have, too) and not all the big-shot scientists???? 
  • And then I think that naturalism or materialism or physicalism needs a little more explanation since if you are like most people you've already forgotten what I wrote about that even if you ever bothered to read it in the first place. We could also say, does your worldview matter? And what is a worldview anyway? Hint: naturalism is a worldview.
  • And you also need to understand the implications of naturalism. Now, there are a lot of different flavors of these particular "isms" and I won't bore you with all of those because they are really boring (try reading the Oxford Guide Philosophy or the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy late at night and see how long you last) and they are just various ways that ingenious (but ultimately foolish) people have tried to make these various "isms" "work." None of them do. None of them will ever, ever, EVER work, and I will tell you why in words of mostly three syllables or less.
  • What is natural selection? (This may come as a shock... but natural selection has the same ontological status as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. That's philosophical talk for natural selection is nothing more than a myth. Even a lot of smart Intelligent Design (I.D.) people think natural selection exists but they won't after they read this.)
  • What are mutations and how could they possibly be a source of biological information? Or, how can TNT both build AND destroy houses??!!!
  • What are the minimum requirements for information and can evolution explain them?
  • What is the role of reason in this discussion. You (me) are "just" a Christian after all, so don't you (me) discount reason?
Anyway, you will soon have all of the answers to these and many other interesting and fascinating questions so the next time some smart-ass intellectual tries to tell you that YOU are stupid or unsophisticated or a hick from central Illinois (well that part is actually true) because you don't believe in evolution you can say: "HA, well explain information for me then Mr Big Shot smart guy/gal and do so by only using the laws of physics."

Well, I'm getting ahead of myself and I've already given away the game, but still, maybe you want the details and even if you don't I'm going to give them to you so you don't look like an idiot when you call some other idiot an idiot. So you'll know to say, like House on TV does, you're an idiot! Of course, House is the real idiot and pretender but who ever recognizes that? At any rate, you need to know WHY, step by grueling and painful step, why evolution isn't true and why it is not even possible for it to be true. If I can do that one little, tiny, insignificant thing for even one person then this will have been worth it. To me at least, and that's what counts. (Apologies to Harry Paget Flashman and the Mogambo Guru for stealing their inimitable styles of writing. They say it's the highest form of flattery - maybe they won't sue...)

I'll get to some of the details next time. Soon. Feel free to quibble. Saying that evolution isn't true is the biological equivalent of telling physicists that quantum physics is nonsense. And when the person saying that, ME (and others, too, see I.D., except most of them have scientific academic credentials) doesn't have a Ph.D. behind my name you could be forgiven for thinking, what an arrogant ass this guy must be. And you'd be right! But that is irrelevant to the quality of the arguments so read what I have to say first. It's possible that I am an arrogant ass AND right. :-)

No comments: