The beautiful "science" of evolutionary biology has demonstrated that it is an endeavor of pure induction, with absolutely no deductive capacity of an experimental nature; i.e. the science must be presumed correct, rather than objectively proved conclusively. This renders the answer to Vox’s first question incredibly ignorant:
Question:
1. How do creationists "pose a serious threat to society"?Let’s think about this. The fabled Enlightenment was ushered in on bloodbath of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror by the fanboys of reason and evidence and Atheism. The trend toward socialist control of the Herd is a movement by the Enlightenment enthusiasts who are also are self-endowed messiahs. Not coincidentally, the bloodiest century ever, the 20th, was primarily due to enthusiasts of the Enlightenment philosophers, those who forced New Man philosophy by eugenic homocide.
Answer:
Society only functions when the majority of the people agree on basic fundamental ideas. A critical mass of people who believe reason and evidence don't matter is a slippery slope to tyranny.
And as Vox points out, there is no correlation between social advances and the Atheist Enlightened mind:. For example, slavery was fought and conquered by Christians, not the least of whom was Wilberforce, who led the movement which brought freedom to slaves in Great Britain. Civil Rights in the USA was fought for by the Republicans, not Democrats; the Democrats took credit for it.
In fact, that statement regarding the slippery slope can handily be applied to the Atheist governments which inhabited and bloodied half of the earth less than a century ago.
Read the whole thing for further insight into how to avoid any answers at all.
This individual has received evolution as an ideology which falsifies other ideologies: the ideology of Scientism. This is the hazard of evolution and the high priests of evolution who spend half their time on Atheist proselytising, and the other half on why evolution proves Atheism. The general population (especially the population of maleducated young people, taught by maleducated "educators") will easily believe in science (it works, right?) and simultaneously be totally incapabable of rational analysis of the actual issues presented by legitimate science vs actual truth. And who wants to ridiculed as a science-denier?
The predictive value of an hypothesis is the standard of valuation for any hypothesis in science. The white swan hypothesis predicted that the next swan would be white, a deduction based on the induction findings that all swans seen in Britain and Europe were white. This could be falsified, and was falsified by the discovery of black swans in Australia. This is a firm, unquestionable falsification of the white swan hypothesis.
The commonly claimed falsification which is proposed for evolution is the discovery of a rabbit in PreCambrian deposits. But there is no reason to think that the ever-modified theory of evolution (the heart of biology) would not be modified yet again to accommodate such a thing. Why? Because finding a rabbit in a deposit is not conclusive; it is not an unquestionable falsification of evolution. There is no observation of how the rabbit got into that deposit.
The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology. One cannot take a rabbit, or a population of rabbits, or a population of Darwin's Finches, or fish in lake Malawi, and predict a future species which will occur, much less when. The theory of evolution is completely without discrimination when it comes to predicting what will happen to species: anything could come out of evolution. Anything is not an acceptable scientific conclusion, unless there is an ideological component involved.
As Vox points out, Daniel Dennett claims that because Physics works with precision (Newtonian anyway), that gives credibility to evolution. That is the weakest Appeal To Authority possible. When evolution can predict future consequence of evolution, rather than merely predict other instances of induction, then and only then will it be on a par with physics; then and only then will it be of any significant value to actual biological science, which could then use it to predict biological outcomes. Then and only then will it derive, for itself, credibility and respect outside of the circles of ideology who use it for Scientism, Materialism and Atheism (and its fans). It has interest from an inductive-only standpoint; it has no interest for valid worldviews.
Worldviews ask questions like "why are there laws of nature?", rather than merely "What are the laws of nature?". It is irrational for the knowledge of the laws of nature to include the attitude that "there is no why, there are only ever more whats" of material knowledge. Yet there is no possible knowledge contained within "whats" that addresses the "whys", much less negates them. The assertion that there can be no "whys" is not a product of either empiricism or logic. It is ideological. And to delare the "why" to be an illegitimate question as some Atheist philosophers have done, is irrational.
The supposed advocates of "reason and evidence" cannot provide the reason and evidence which can address the supposed lack of "whys", and they will never be able to: it is a Category Error. The advocates will never, ever, admit that, however. The reason is that they they have accepted the unsupportable Principle Of Materialism, and they have done that without either evidence or logic for its validity. It is thus a religious belief, a faith without evidence or reasoning. And that reflects clear back to the use of evolution for ideological and worldview purposes: it is a religious faith.
Updated for typos.
4 comments:
Evolution does not make predictions about what future species will evolve, but rather about where certain fossils will be found and how developed they will be. In this sense it has passed every test ever hurtled at it.
Hi Martin, evolution is always a good test to see if you're still around...
Yes, they project to other support inductions with closed deductions; they do not do open deductions regarding what evolution would produce next in existing, living, life forms. And that would be the predictability that equates to useful progress in biology. So there is no deduction which projects IF [evolution], THEN [the next iteration of human-plus will be X]. That would be open deduction based out of the theory. Open deduction cannot exist in evolution, because evolution predicts that anything can happen; physics has open predictability which is deducible from theory.
And btw, closed deduction playing into induction is not always successful either; however, unsuccessful forays are not considered failures, because "maybe evolution didn't go that way after all". So virtually every answer works in evolution. Even the "Precambrian rabbit" would be explained after considerable song and dance routines produce new corners within the "theory".
"Question:
1. How do creationists "pose a serious threat to society"?
Answer:
Society only functions when the majority of the people agree on basic fundamental ideas. A critical mass of people who believe reason and evidence don't matter is a slippery slope to tyranny."
To expand upon this, people who believe that science is evil, or a conspiracy, and that feelings are the ultimate authority, will tend to be played and manipulated by demagogues and that is where the tyranny bit comes in. In a democracy, the nation only functions as well as its voters are educated and reasonable. If they believe their feelings are the highest authority, then a demagogue can use those feelings to win elections and steer the nation into a sort of bread and circuses autocracy.
"Let’s think about this. The fabled Enlightenment was ushered in on bloodbath of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror by the fanboys of reason and evidence and Atheism. The trend toward socialist control of the Herd is a movement by the Enlightenment enthusiasts who are also are self-endowed messiahs. Not coincidentally, the bloodiest century ever, the 20th, was primarily due to enthusiasts of the Enlightenment philosophers, those who forced New Man philosophy by eugenic homocide."
QED
If you believe that whatever feels good is true, then you end up with historical revisionist stuff like the above.
”To expand upon this, people who believe that science is evil, or a conspiracy, and that feelings are the ultimate authority, will tend to be played and manipulated by demagogues and that is where the tyranny bit comes in. In a democracy, the nation only functions as well as its voters are educated and reasonable. If they believe their feelings are the highest authority, then a demagogue can use those feelings to win elections and steer the nation into a sort of bread and circuses autocracy.”
To deny the precepts of the inferred factoids of evolution does not entail a belief that science is evil, a conspiracy, or that the scientific method is incorrect, or that logic is not a fundamental of rational thinking. This is comic book thinking by Atheists who wish to categorize critics by demagoguing them, pre-emptively, and then charging them with demagoguery. The fact that evolution is a purely unproven, inferential historical pursuit with no scientific deductive, predictive capacity is defended against by attacking its attackers: evolution is in fact sacrosanct to the Atheist worldview, which is a belief without actual deductive or empirical supporting evidence: blind belief and therefore a fundamentalist religion.
When it comes to rational defense of Atheism, it is purely the feelings which you suggest belong to religions and the religious which are the defense for the Atheist worldview. When it comes to Atheism and the Left which they inhabit, elections are won via the Atheoleftist feeling of elitist messiahship, and their co-dependent relationship with the “Victims” they designate and maintain in their victimhood, with programs which provide tit for tat: largesse for votes. The voters are maintained in their poverty and on the plantation, in return for their votes; to lose the voters to actual release from the plantation would be to lose votes, and thus power. There is no one more attracted to power than the Atheist New Man messiahs, and no one more dangerous.
In terms of destructive tyrannies, nothing comes close to the Atheist Ideological regimes that bloodied the 20th Century, with human casualty tallies in the hundreds of millions and entire populations eradicated by Atheist eugenics. That is fact.
Revisionist? What crap.
You can’t prove otherwise, so you insult with labels.
You’ll have to do better than that. If you have an argument, then make it.
Post a Comment