Saturday, April 02, 2005

The urge to merge...

The National Geographic, the material of satire:
"Embryology too involved patterns that couldn’t be explained by coincidence. Why does the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile?"

According to Naturalists that's supposedly not "coincidence" and one is supposed to read much meaning into the form of embryos, yet the whole Anthropic Principle is just a "coincidence"? If a sense of humor is truly humans' sense of their own humors then Evolutionism/Naturalism is quite a grand joke. It does give one a sense that in some sense we are human, all too human, almost just humus.

It would not be so bad if evolutionists' misanthropic tendencies did not often become manifest in the culture. But it's not always funny, not when people start really believing a joke is true. For example, the same fraudulent evolutionists can show up culturally and sadly, people have demonstrated quite a capacity for belief in mythological narratives of naturalism:
To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes—as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world’s biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time.....

The contribution of the actual scientific tradition to this ethos was exemplified by the quintessentially German figure of Ernst Haeckel, that formidable biologist and convert to Darwinism who combined with ardent advocacy of the Volk and romantic nationalism, racial regeneration, and anti-Semitism. He was to become what Daniel Gasman has called 'Germany’s major prophet of political biology.'

(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)

3 comments:

DarkSyde said...

What is your theory and what testable predictions does it make?

You may be confusing evolution and common descent. Natural Selection is the original theory from Darwin and Wallace. NS is often conflated with common descent, but common descent is an inferred fact, the theory of NS, and the Modern Synthesis, explain how species diverge from common ancestral populations over time. When creationist object to evolution, it's usually common descent they're rejecting, but they often purposely try to talk as though the theoretical aspect and the inferred fact are one and the same. They are not: Natural Selection could be dead wrong, and common descent would still be an inferred fact.

Anonymous said...

How can you have common descent without natural selection?

~Bertie

mynym said...

"What is your theory and what testable predictions does it make?"

This isn't really the place to write a book. That is what one would have to do.

But,
One assumption of Design is that there will be design inherent in the Cosmos which humans can understand through their own symbols and signs. Another would be that Life is in some sense special or unique, a focus of Design, built and based on symbols and signs, encoded information, a code such as the genetic code.

For predictions, see:
(The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
By Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards)

The recognition of design is used in scientific fields such as forensic science, archaeology, cryptography, code detection and is used in copyright issues on anything from biotechnology to music.

"When creationist object to evolution, it's usually common descent they're rejecting, but they often purposely try to talk as though the theoretical aspect and the inferred fact are one and the same. They are not: Natural Selection could be dead wrong, and common descent would still be an inferred fact."

People are just disagreeing over how common, common descent is, I would note that even the staunchest typologist would agree that species descended from common ancestors. (Perhaps not "a common ancestor.") If you note in that satirical picture there are two fish in the womb. If embryos have gill slits, then that's cause enough to merge for those with teh urge to merge. Yet note that based on the hopeful monster type notions typical to some Naturalists they had best hope for twin monsters with the same mutations. What are the chances? They'd best hope for hopeful twin monsters, as a single mutated monster would not be able to reproduce within the same population no matter how hopeful it is to do so.

At any rate, what is the best and most compelling example of evidence for common descent that causes you to infer it as a fact?

It's interesting to me, as what is observed in Nature is the typological, not the sequential. This is what Darwinists are struggling against. If the latest National Geographic dealing with Darwinism is any indication they seem to have to satiate a neurotic urge to merge based on frauds.

So I ask you what you think the evidence is with respect to just how common, common descent is.