I believe that our science is limited by our observational instrumentation, therefore our science is imperfect.
In this light, the Darwinian theory of evolution in its original form is constrained by the observational tools that mankind had available to them in that past time and is comparatively imperfect. In the context of the above proviso, Darwinian Evolution as originally proposed is not the"hard fact-based" science that some people take it to be. In many cases it has been overridden by more modern observation. Currently, with computers, electron microscopes ...and so on... at our disposal, the hunt for knowledge goes on, but still in an imperfect way. In the near future, we will have more and proper tools to expand our understanding of the processes of life and inheritance. We will gain benefits in the field of medicine, for example, where many more lives will be saved as treatment is more fully customize to each persons genetic makeup. It seems to me like the anti-science political faction does not recognize the imperfect nature of physical science and aspires to the metaphysical protection of abstract thought. >From the depths of the dark ages when spiritual beliefs we transcendent over science, to the current development of metaphysics, no lives have been saved by this way of thinking. I have no problems in leaving the philosophers think whatever they want to, but I want my doctor to follow the latest proven genetically base course of treatments, as poor as they may currently be. What I don't want to hear from ny doctor is "all you can do is prey, I can't help you with this problem, we just don't really know enough about that right now". On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the > field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its > subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for > geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. > The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. > Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, > and chemistry. > > Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion > of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a > prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. > That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads > to many faulty conclusions. > > To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? > If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand > Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado > river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because > you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible > explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon > was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. > Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one > explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a > naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't > science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than > Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion > because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid > to question it because they ran the risk of being "excommunicated" from the > field. > > My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD > science out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least > make someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not > the"hard fact-based" science that it claims to be. > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Eric Walker <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:57 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic > Definitions > > Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical > characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes > much to the confusion of the debate. > > > What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of > evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you > seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic > points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, > for example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside > physics altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect > that the scientific method should be better applied to a handful of > experiments that have not been approached with a sufficient degree of > objectivity. > > I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I > have not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're > saying and feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such > matters, even if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even > less in a position to tell physicists that they are confused about the > field as a whole. I find myself in a similar situation with regard to > evolutionary biology; having a vague sense of the limits of my > understanding, I am happy to defer to them on the fundamentals of their > area of expertise. Here we are talking about the hard sciences and not > literature or the social sciences. > > What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite > understanding of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of > the field and call (Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do > you propose a world in which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields > has no place? Without having obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and > attained recognized mastery of the field, how is one to distinguish between > an awareness of fundamental difficulties in the assumptions of the field, > on one hand, and one's own lack of knowledge of the experimental basis of > its conclusions, and the specific details of those conclusions, on the > other? > > Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of your position. > > Eric > >
