Darwinism and the pretense of knowledge

Darwinism (evolutionary studies if you prefer) is a field that is dominated by a pretense of knowledge. The public is repeatedly offered fanciful stories and models in the place of true knowledge. No other field comes close to this reliance on pretended knowledge. Let's take a look at a recent example.

Quotes and comments;

A. Should humans do what comes naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
Nicholas Wade in the New York Times said, “We May Be Born With an Urge to Help.” He began with the question: “What is the essence of human nature?” Then he discussed evidence that infants have an inborn tendency to help.' [1.]

- Apparently it's the 'urge to help' that constitutes the essence of human nature.

How does he know that there is an 'essence' to human nature? On what basis does he expect to be able to determine it? Is this a meaningful question? Is it a question that can be answered? (The fact he's asking it is evidence man is not mere matter in motion... and in itself refutes materialism.)

What makes him think an animal can understand itself? (Don't you have to be outside of x to be able to understand x?)

If man does have an urge to help this provides evidence he's not merely matter in motion. I consider it mysticism to believe the urge to help can be a product of matter. (I've called the belief human qualities or spirit can be the product of matter,the new animsm; or the animist fallacy.)

Wade only imagines he knows the origin of human nature; in truth he has no idea. (If M2M evolution were true, then human nature had it's origin in planetary rock, or in the Big Bang.) But then Darwinism is all about pretending to have knowledge you don't possess. (I guess it's just a part of human nature.)

B. 'Others quoted say, “Humans clearly evolved the ability to detect inequities, control immediate desires, foresee the virtues of norm following and gain the personal, emotional rewards that come from seeing another punished.”

- Whenever you see the word 'clearly' (even if written by yours truly) ignore it. It's meaningless. The idea anyone sees human origins 'clearly' is a joke. We weren't there; all we have are tiny fragments of data to work with. Evolutionists have little or no idea what happened. Anyone who pretends he can see things clearly is talking nonsense. [Thomas Sowell, in his book on Intellectuals, says that the best educated among us are lucky to have 1 percent of all knowledge available.]

It's fallacious to claim humans evolved x ability. This is a meaningless statement. Evolution is an abstraction of various processes; not a thing, or a tool one uses.

Let's see; a blind random process somehow produced human beings who have the ability of foresight. Is that the story?
Evolution is all about this kind of magical production; where things reproduce not after their kinds, but after something that doesn't yet exist. And so inert matter produces living organisms; and the impersonal births the personal; the non-intelligent the intelligent and so on. And all this happens by random chemical reaction. This is more miraculous than anything in science fiction.

Humans 'evolved' all these abilities before they were human apparently. I wonder how that works. I guess they decided to produce all these new abilities by making copying mistakes. (Maybe they produced them by banging their heads on rocks.) Over and over the evolutionist claims that new organs and functions (even of a spectacular kind) can emerge from mutations. This isn't knowledge; it's pretense.

Notes;
1. What’s Natural for Humans? Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/01/2009
2. It's an academic game to pretend there is some one essence to man. (This has the benefit of allowing many people with differing ideas, to all get their snouts into the same academic trough.) Human nature is mulitform, and must not be reduced to one certain quality.
3. I said that no other field comes close to Darwinism when it comes to passing off pretense as knowledge... but I forgot about politics. I'm not sure which of the two depends more on a pretense of knowledge. It's too close to call.