ENDNOTE: Darwinism itself a pseudoscience?



Darwin’s Vigilantes, Richard Sternberg, and Conventional Pseudoscience
By Fred Reed — September 24, 2018

*** begin quote ***

Science is supposed to be objective study of nature, impelled by a willingness to follow the evidence impartially wherever it leads. For the most part it works this way. In the case of emotionally charged topics, it does not. For example, racial intelligence, cognitive differences between the sexes, and weaknesses in Darwinian evolution.  Scientists who do perfectly good research in these fields, but arrive at forbidden conclusions, will be hounded out of their fields, fired from academic and research positions, blackballed from employment, and have their careers destroyed.

A prime example is Richard  Sternberg, a Ph.D. in biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. He is not a lightweight. From 2001-2007 he was staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2001-2007 a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. 

Hell broke loose when he authorized in 2004 the publication, in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an organ of the Smithsonian Institution, of a peer-reviewed article, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher taxonomic Categories by Stephen Meyer. It dealt with the possibility of intelligent design as an explanation of aspects of  Darwinism not explainable by the conventional theory. This is a serious no-no among the guardians of conventional Darwinism, the political correctness of science.

*** and ***

Pseudoscience? Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience?  It is firmly based on no evidence. For most readers this assertion will seem as delusional as saying that the sun revolves around the earth. This is because we have been indoctrinated since birth in the Darwinian myth. But look at the facts.

We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans. Do we know of what those oceans consisted? (Know, not speculate, hope, it stands to reason, must have been, everybody says so). No, we do not. Do we know of what those oceans would have had to consist to bring about life? No. Do we even know what we think evolved? No. Has the chance appearance of life been replicated in the laboratory? No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No. Can the chance appearance be shown to be mathematically probable? No.  Can Darwinism explain the existence of irreducibly complex structures? No. Does the fossil record, particularly of the Ediacaran and Cambrian, support Darwin? No.

*** end quote ***

As a fat old white guy injineer, I was taught to be rational.  In the math classes, we learned about limits.  What one can say with certainty is the there is a lot we human beings don’t know.  And what’s worse, we don’t know what we don’t know. (That famous Quadrant IV of the Johari window!)

That being said. It’s all a lot of “theories”, and a fair amount of speculation.  

Hence, my general reluctance to make any pronouncements on much of anything.  But, of one thing I am very sure, I don’t want to waste what little time I left on this Earth fighting about matters of faith and someone’s “heresies”.  Most of there are a wide variety of topics that I don’t care about.  Of those, like sexual orientation, who’s “millionaires playing for billionaires” are better, and what the latest internet kerfuffle is all about.  I don’t want to know about it and I certainly don’t want to pay for it.

It’s Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the Law of Gravity.  If you can’t tell the difference, then there’s no hope for you.


# – # – # – # – #

Comments are closed.