Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + Line 8:
Line 17: − + Line 17:
Line 26: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Muggeridge's POW, Lennox, Laughlin
'''Evolution of the gaps''' are dogmatic inferences to adaptive [[Logic of possibility|just-so stories]], stated with [[Goebbels' maxim|absolute conviction]] and marked with an extensive usage of [[buzzword]] 'evolution' that serves as [[fog displacement|camouflage]] for complete lack of any [[explanation in science|scientific explanation]] or [[scientific observation|observational]] [[scientific evidence|evidence]] for postulated unknown alien [[phenomenon|phenomena]] under the investigation. For example, [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted his own functionalist biases as he was once criticized by [[Francis Crick]] for hastily attributing a certain phenomenon to evolution, expressed in form of an adaptive story invented with alacrity and agility, even prior to finding out the real mechanism behind it.<ref>{{cite book
'''Evolution of the gaps''' are dogmatic inferences to adaptive [[Logic of possibility|just-so stories]], stated with [[Goebbels' maxim|absolute conviction]] and marked with an extensive usage of [[buzzword]] 'evolution' that serves as [[fog displacement|camouflage]] for complete lack of any [[explanation in science|scientific explanation]] or [[scientific observation|observational]] [[scientific evidence|evidence]] for postulated unknown alien [[phenomenon|phenomena]] under the investigation.<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
|author=John C. Lennox
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
|publisher=Lion Hudson
|location=Oxford, England
|year=2009
|pages=157-8
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jaV4gLt24HYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=God%27s+undertaker&hl=no&sa=X&ei=r2NpVeCrGabfywP4m4GAAg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22evolution%20did%20it%22&f=false
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|quote=It is also very easy to say 'evolution did it' when has not got the faintest idea how, or has simply cobbled up a speculative just-so story with no evidential basis. INdeed, as we have seen, a materialist ''has'' to say that natural processes were solely responsible, since in his or her book, there is no admissible alternative. As an result it is just as easy to end up with an 'evolution of the gaps' as with a 'God of the gaps'. One might even say that it is easier to end up with an 'evolution of the gaps' than a 'God of the gaps' since the fromer suggestion is likely to attract far less criticism than the latter}. ... How can we, then, avoid the charge of intellectual laziness...}</ref> For example, [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted his own functionalist biases as he was once criticized by [[Francis Crick]] for hastily attributing a certain phenomenon to evolution, expressed in form of an adaptive story invented with alacrity and agility, even prior to finding out the real mechanism behind it.<ref>{{cite book
|author=Stephen J. Gould
|author=Stephen J. Gould
|title=Adam’s Navel
|title=Adam’s Navel
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=e-FTSHPpuAAC&q=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&dq=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GF8OUbjICuSn4ATLi4G4DQ&redir_esc=y
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=e-FTSHPpuAAC&q=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&dq=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GF8OUbjICuSn4ATLi4G4DQ&redir_esc=y
|quote=I well remember something that [[Francis Crick]] said to me many years ago, when my own functionalist biases were strong. He remarked, in response to an adaptive story I had invented with alacrity and agility to explain the meaning of repetitive DNA: ‘''Why do you evolutionists always try to identify the value of something '''before you know how it is made'''''?’
|quote=I well remember something that [[Francis Crick]] said to me many years ago, when my own functionalist biases were strong. He remarked, in response to an adaptive story I had invented with alacrity and agility to explain the meaning of repetitive DNA: ‘''Why do you evolutionists always try to identify the value of something '''before you know how it is made'''''?’
|note=The quote seems to be missing at google books hence the edition obviously matters}}</ref> Szostak provided the following explanation why evolutionists are condemned to make the frequent inferences to evolution of the gap: As they do not feel smart enough to design things, they prefer to resort to alien unknown mechanism of evolution "to do the hard work" and only afterwards they attempt to figure out what happened.<ref>{{cite web |title=Artificial Life Closer Than You Think |author= |publisher=cbsnews; originally The Associated Press|date=February 11, 2009 |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-3183953.html|quote="We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.}}</ref> Whenever anyone asserts that this or that organ or organisms developed by means of evolution, the speaker or writer is in fact using a ''[[Thought-terminating cliché|cliché]]'' to express his ignorance about what had happened in unobservable past.<ref>{{cite book
|note=The quote seems to be missing at google books hence the edition obviously matters}}</ref> Szostak provided the following explanation why evolutionists are condemned to make the frequent inferences to evolution of the gap: As they do not feel smart enough to design things, they prefer to resort to alien unknown mechanism of evolution ''"to do the hard work"'' and only afterwards they attempt to figure out what happened.<ref>{{cite web |title=Artificial Life Closer Than You Think |author= |publisher=cbsnews; originally The Associated Press|date=February 11, 2009 |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-3183953.html|quote="We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.}}</ref> Whenever anyone asserts that this or that organ or organisms developed by means of evolution, the speaker or writer is in fact using a ''[[Thought-terminating cliché|cliché]]'' to express his ignorance about what had happened in unobservable past.<ref>{{cite book
|author=Randal Hedtke
|author=Randal Hedtke
|title=Secrets of the Sixth Edition
|title=Secrets of the Sixth Edition
|isbn=978-0-89051-597-6
|isbn=978-0-89051-597-6
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hedtke+The+secrets+of+the+sixth+edition&source=bl&ots=VQBk7unu95&sig=3-pYZsIj2vzBHgcIbYEpexlVc9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FsOGUO2kCIKJ4gS-tYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref>
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hedtke+The+secrets+of+the+sixth+edition&source=bl&ots=VQBk7unu95&sig=3-pYZsIj2vzBHgcIbYEpexlVc9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FsOGUO2kCIKJ4gS-tYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref>
==Evolution of the gaps as anti-theory==
John C. Lennox criticizes the partisans of [[Evolutionism]] for ''"their evolution did it"'' approach as intelectual laziness camouflaging the absence of evidential basis and lack of knowledge. He makes his point by refering to warnings by Nobel laureate physicist and expert on origin of life Robert Lughlin, who regards an '[[Fog displacement|explanation]]' that has no implication and that cannot be tested for a key symptom of ideological thinking.<ref name="LENNOX"/> Laughlin calls such logical dead ends anti-theories, becasue they have exactly opposite effect of real [[theory|theories]]: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it.{{#tag:ref|The page on [[University of California, Berkeley]] contains sources criticising a liberally biased educational system as resembling to ''"a sanctuary for a narrow ideological segment of the spectrum of social and political ideas"'' that does not help students learn ''how'' to think, but rather teaches them ''what'' to think.|group=note}} He points out that the Darwinian Evolution by natural selection has come to function as such anti-theory, called upon to cover up embarassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize just-so stories that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. He states with irony that buzzword-involving claims such as ''"evolution did it!"'' and ''"evolution!"'' are loosely applied on phenomena like protein defying the laws of mass action and "complicated mess of chemical reactions turning into chicken," {{#tag:ref|For exploring overly simplistic views from this category, cf. External source: ''CBS News'' documentary ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJOQiyLFMNY&feature=youtu.be&t=715 60 Minutes Presents: B-Rex]''.<ref>{{cite web |title=60 Minutes Presents: B-Rex |chapter=How to build a dinosaur |publisher= CBS News |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJOQiyLFMNY&feature=youtu.be&t=715 |accessdate=May 30, 2015 |quote=And the stakes are high. If blood vessels can survive 80 million years, what about DNA? ... Jack Horner is sceptical that the full Dinosaur DNA sequence will ever be found. But that hasn't stopped him. He's come up with the whole new idea for his dream of making a dinosaur: The best way is just to use a modern dinosaur - the chicken. Because evolution works, birds are actually carrying ancestral DNA. Horner has written a book proposing a plan to mind that ancestral DNA as a way to reverse-engineer a chicken into what he calls a ''dino-chicken''.}}</ref>|group=note}} respectively; and ''"evolution is the cause"'' is misused as simplistic answer to question related to human brain operating on logical principles no computer can emulate.<ref name="Laughlin">{{cite book
|author=Robert B. Laughlin
|title=A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics From the Bottom Down
|publisher=Basic Books
|location=
|year=2008
|pages=169
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=djQKg_XBsLEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+different+universe:+Reinventing+Physics+from+the+Bottom+Down&hl=no&sa=X&ei=62dpVffaDYKRsAHZuIGgBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=%22evolution%20is%20the%20cause%22&f=false
|isbn=978-0-7867-2218-1
|quote=Your protein defies the laws of mass action - evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken - evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!}}</ref>
[[Malcolm Muggeridge]] mused that the so called theory of evolution will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future and posterity will feel astonished that so very flimsy and dubious claims could be accepted with the incredible credulity they implore.
Uncritical acceptance of 'evolution of the gaps' - idelogical thinking may lead to such state of intulectial laziness as one portrayed by Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, according to whom Darwinists have never asked scientifically whether random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.<ref>{{cite web |title=A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism |publisher=Discovery Institute |url=http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org |accessdate=May 30, 2015}}</ref>
==Typical examples==
==Typical examples==