The evolution of evolutionary apologetics

In this post I want to make a few comments about a lecture by Steven Goldman on Evolution. (The evolution of evolution.)

Quotes and comments.

1. Goldman's version of Darwin doesn't sound like Darwin to me... it sounds like neo-Darwinism.

2. He tells us, 'for Darwin there were no species.... only individuals.'
- Why then did he write a book on the origin of species?

3. G. tells us if there was food for everyone there would be no evolution (i.e. that evolution depends on competition.)
- If that's the case why did creatures leave the oceans (where there Is food for everyone) to go on the land where you say there isn't? (This lack of food is a strange idea.... it's more untrue than true... on the whole it's not true.)

4. G. tells us that, ' in time 'real' novelty emerges....' and 'Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new.
- what does that mean? what does he mean by 'real novelty'? He seems to be trying hard to avoid mention of information; as no new information is produced... that being the case how can you get 'real novelty.' (Doesn't sound very scientific does it?)

- Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new. This is doubtful... but even if it happened it wouldn't survive. How can you get something new by making a copying mistake? That's the question. It seems to me that what apologists like Goldman are just playing games here; pretending they don't understand genetics, that they don't understand the variations possible with genetics. (e.g. all human beings are unique; and one couple could theoretically have billions of unique children.) Why the appeal to a dumbed down ignorance?

5. Goldman seems to agree with S. Gould that if we 'replayed' the tape we would have a totally different set of creatures.... "this is a very exciting idea... ' Goldman says, thrilling to his subject... 'very liberating.'

- One can only wonder why. On the basis insanity is exciting :=) I really don't understand this kind of reaction. What is exciting about this? I don't see how we could possibly ask for a more staggering collection of amazing creatures. (I can't help thinking of the verse in the bible that tells us natural man is by nature ungrateful and unthankful. G. gives us a great illustration of this :=) It's really beyond belief. [A more radical denial of creation would be hard to imagine.] The natural man cannot bring himself to offer thanks to his Creator. He cannot. He will not.

6. 'By 1900 Darwinian evolution was comatose.... but 'scientists' were convinced nontheless that evolution was true.'

- Why? Because of the supposed (imagined) relationships he tells us. I don't buy this at all. People insisted that evolution was true because they wanted it to be true. There was little evidence that could be pointed to, and in fact most of the evidence pointed against evolution. (If you discount the evolutionary framework forced onto the fossil record.) People rejected the mechanism, G. tells us. (Gee; what mechanism? Darwin had none.)

6. Goldman perpetuates the myth Mendel's paper was published in an obscure journal...

- it wasn't obscure.... it was even in 11? u.s. university libraries... in well over a hundred libraries? (It was deliberately ignored because evolutionists felt it would hurt Darwin.)

7. G.tells us the 'new' Darwinism was a blend (sounds Charlie-like) of Darwinism and Mendel.

- One wonders why one would need Darwin? Of course one doesn't. This is just PR; trying to save the theory by 'saving' Darwin. So called 'neo-Darwinism' has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolutionists use Darwin's name because they're afraid that if they repudiate Darwin (say he was wrong) this will hurt the theory of evolution. (That they think and behave this way shows how afraid they are their theory will collapse under scrutiny.) Darwin is dead; but evolutionists refuse to bury him.

8. Goldman talks about natural selection 'powering' the evolution process.

- natural selection could no more 'power' (embarassing personification) evolution than Darwin's pigeon breeders could produce a new species. Natural selection is a conservative process; as any honest scientist will tell you.

9. G. goes on to tell us 'disproving spontaneous generation' (which he pretends was only an 'old wives' tale) was one of the small triumphs of 19th century science.

- I guess we should all be so lucky as to have such a 'small' triumph.
- When you hear people using such pathetic rhetoric you know they have a strong bias... and you know they will never tell you the truth on the subject they're discussing. This was no 'small' triumph. G. only denigrates it because he has an axe to grind.

- for evolution to be true, spontaneous generation has to be true. This is the problem materialists face. Many people have tried top solve it, and have all failed utterly.

10. 'Darwin focused on individuals... but the new Darwinists focus on populations... Darwin was back on the top of the heap again.' (i.e. with the emergence of neo-Darwinism.)

- so why do we still talk about Darwin. Darwin is dead; he cannot be revived. Darwin is nothing but a brand name. (And how ironic this brand is so famous on campus where brands are so looked down on.)

11. G. talks about the Miller experiments... and claims 'we now know he got it all wrong....' (i.e. now we know better what the 'conditions' of the early earth was.) 'But it was still important work.'

- This is nothing but a bluff. We don't know, and we never will, what those conditions were. To think otherwise is to believe in magic; to believe scientists can produce magical results. The idea scientists can answer every question is a faith claim. (In my view an absurd faith claim) I call this scientism. It is utterly impossible to know what these conditions were; though many people are willing to tell 'just so' stories about it, and to pretend they know... and to deceive students into believing these fantasy stories. Some things (i would say many things) are forever beyond our ability to know. This is just the way things are; it does no good to pretend otherwise.

12. Goldman talks about 'organisms' that live by deep sea vents 'never having seen the sun...'

- I thought all creatures had ascended from the first living form... if this is true, these deep sea creatures would have a connection (albeit distant) with the sun, etc. You can't preach a theory of continuity and then pretend whenever convenient it doesn't exist; either 'life' exists on a continuum of ascent or it doesn't.)

13. G. gives us the Darwinian fairy tale that, 'life first emerged by these deep sea vents.

- As far as I can see this is impossible. (Life is an abstraction of course. Life can't emerge; some living form has to emerge.)

14. G. admits we can't account for the origin of life, but we now have computer models that can do it.

- I guess we could call this salvation by animation.

15. G. talks repeatedly of 'random' changes...

- you cannot prove a change is random. (I'm restricting this to biology.)

16. He ends by giving us one of the silliest of all the Darwinian fairy tales; the one where some 'life' form [prokaryotes] just happened to find one day it had the capacity for photosynthesis. i.e. by some fortuitous mutation (loss of information) it got a radically new ability.

- This is nonsense on stilts. (Stilts made of water.) The only reason people accept this is because they have no idea how impossible it is... or what is being talked about. This is the magical creation of information. He might as well say, "one day mother nature waved her magic wand, and photosynthesis emerged, the first true cell emerged." (And all the Materialists lived happily ever after.

- this is all silliness on paper stilts.... It's shameful this should be taught to students as fact (And it only happens for political reasons) There is no proof of this, and there never will be. As Goldman himself admits, 'this is all just hand waving.' I agree. Why then do you insist on claiming it's a fact? Why do you go to the courts to have the power of the state enforce such idiot notions? (And what is the power of the state? The military.)

17. G. tells us that, somehow (no one knows how) the first cell magically appeared.

- Is this any different than saying, ''once upon a time mother nature gave birth to the first cell?"

18. Goldman keeps repeating his complaint that evolution is 'still' a scandalous idea... (In his best whining annunciation.)

- As if 'scandal' (i.e. error) has something to do with the passage of time.
- This is as stupid as saying 'murder' is still a scandalous idea, or incest is 'still' a scandalous idea. (Or Marxism, or Christianity, etc.) This is the 'progressivism' of the Left; where if things don't move in the direction of Statist Collectivization, it's all 'scandalous' don't you know. Of course at the very same time most evolutionists insist there is no direction in evolution - so go figure. It makes no sense to me.

- This makes as much sense as for me to complain that Materialists and atheists still (still I say, still) refuse to admit that evolution is impossible. This debate has gone on for millennia, and I assume it will continue to go on as long as there are humans alive to debate it.

Notes;
1. Steven Goldman; Lecture #22; Life; The evolution of evolution (Science in the 20th century - The Teaching Company)
2. 'It has been pointed out that there is, within each individual, the potential to produce the full range of variation possible within the species; Darwin found that all the fancy types of pigeon, for example, could be produced after several generations by breeding from the common rock pigeon. When the environmental circumstances are unfavorable to one particular type of variation, it may decline almost to the point of extinction. Yet all the time that other variants of the same species survive, there is the potential for that variant to reemerge when the environment changes. This is most likely the case with the light- and dark-colored peppered moths in England.' - Ian Taylor/'In the Minds of Men'/ch.6
3. "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development [evolution] we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." Ernst Haeckel (1876, 1:348) Taylor/ch. 7.
4. Chapter 7. of Taylor concerns the origin of life issue.
5. Goldman loses credibility by his caricature of debate over spontaneous genertaion. Just compare his version with taylor's and tell me who you think is the real scholar. (I realize we're comparing a chapter from a book with a 30 minute lecture, but it's revealing all the same.)
5. ' Haeckel had put his finger on the real need for spontaneous generation when he said, "This hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation" (Haeckel 1876, 1:348), and this is as true today as it was in 1876.' - Taylor/ch 7.
6. Like 99.99 percent of evolutionary apologists he brings back the Scopes trial.
- if he really knew what went on you'd think he'd be ashamed to mention the trial. (But I suppose he's relying on the ignorance of his listeners.)
7. Like most evolutionary apologists Goldman relies heavily on the idea the rock layers are a kind of clock, that shows us the progression of 'evolutionary' history.
- what evolutionists will Never do is subject the idea of rock chronology to criticism. (And with very good reason.) It's impossible to prove chronology by succession in rock layers. (i.e. it's impossible to prove how long the layers took to form.)
8. Listening to Goldman reminded me of the old classic 'Elephant Talk' - by King Crimson