Note: This is not a religious-based argument.
While life has undoubtedly evolved, Darwin's proposals for its origin and evolution lack a scientific foundation. The essence of my argument is that science relies on "causation" and "inductive reasoning," concepts which was opposed by David Hume in his philosophy. For instance, William Paley's watchmaker argument, rooted in inductive reasoning, was confidently dismissed by Hume without recognizing the anti-scientific nature of the rebuttal. Hume then proposed chance and time as explanations for order in the universe.
Darwin adopted this perspective, suggesting the origin of life in accordance with Hume's unscientific philosophy and interpreting the diversity and evolution of life based on minute chance differences during birth. Darwin's primary observations were limited to the end of production lines in nature, which, according to Richard Dawkins, "appear to have design written all over them" or "everything about a living organism screams at you it’s designed." It is evident that one cannot comprehend how automobiles are made solely by visiting an automotive museum. Nevertheless, Darwin's Hume-based argument was accepted as a scientific discovery and has since found acceptance among scientists.
I would greatly appreciate your feedback on my argument. Please refer to the attached PowerPoint presentation and its references for more details.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
For me the evolutionary theory is absolutely scientific as it is based on objective facts and not on the subjective opinions.
Dear Zaal Kikvidze
I posit that Darwin's idea, influenced by Hume's philosophy, lacks a scientific foundation, making it subjective rather than grounded in objective facts. While science, fortunately, did not universally adopt Hume's philosophy and continued to progress, we seem to accept it selectively in certain cases, such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and its evolution. Consequently, Darwinian evolution appears to be inherently subjective in nature.
I am not familiar with Hume's philosophy and cannot comment on this. From Darwin's book (Origins of species) I only can see that this theory is firmly based on facts.
Evolutionary theory is a hypothesis that has not been disproved. Yes, refined and expanded but, at this moment, not disproved.
Hello Ziaedin; As Dave has pointed out, testability is the key issue about whether a proposition is scientific. Natural selection was Darwin's proposed mechanism that explains evolution. That mechanism has been tested countless times. Dave explained it accurately.
Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
Dear Zaal Kikvidze
It is a factual observation that Darwin lacked knowledge about cells, the genetic code, the immune system, and other crucial aspects. Another undeniable fact is that he observed an extensive variety of life, essentially the end of the production line in nature. My analogy questions whether one can visit an automotive museum and deduce the entire production system behind all those vehicles solely based on that observation. For further details, please refer to the section "Darwin’s Contribution" in the following linked document.
Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?
Moreover, I want to highlight my primary argument again: while science decisively rejected Hume's outlook and leaned on causation and inductive reasoning, scientists have, interestingly, retained Hume's suggestions for specific cases. This selective acceptance appears subjective and, arguably, unscientific.
Dear Dave Kabay and James Des Lauriers
Let's pose two fundamental questions about life:
According to Darwin and Neo-Darwinism, the answer to both questions lies in a combination of chance and time (chance-time). Notably, this perspective can be traced back to Hume. The implication of this outlook is the dismissal of various scientific disciplines such as technology, chemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, programming, and numerous other areas of knowledge and know-how. It suggests that time, through "chance mutation" and "natural selection," will eventually resolve everything. However, it is essential to note that natural selection, purportedly a deterministic part of the theory, is acknowledged to be inherently random. For instance, a beneficial mutation can be eradicated before reaching adulthood (please refer to my question on ResearchGate titled "Is there such a thing as Dawkins’ paradox?").
In my view, we have continually adjusted and refined the theory as our understanding of life has expanded, yet the underlying philosophy of Hume persists. The following quote from "Gods of Science" succinctly summarizes Neo-Darwinism.
“Neo-Darwinian line of thinking is similar to believing that any computer operating system such as MS-Windows, Ubuntu, Mac OS or Fedora were produced by chance and each new version are also based on minute random changes which can happen during copying or other inaccuracies. This is exactly the contribution of Darwin’s descent with modification and the theory of natural selection to biology.”
Well, let's see; The second question... There is an enormous literature about the evidence and mechanisms for how that probably occurred. There is no need to repeat it here - you are well versed in it.
The first question. We don't know. The research is active and there are some intriguing leads. Deep ocean vents are my favorite candidate location.
Regards, Jim Des Lauriers
Dear James Des Lauriers Dave Kabay and Zaal Kikvidze
Regarding the first question, one of the most renowned tests is the Miller–Urey experiment (MUE). In the past, I viewed the experiment as I would any other scientific research. However, I am now genuinely astonished that, under the influence of Hume's unscientific philosophy, scientists attempted to create life by chance and have since endeavored to refine this experiment in various scientific establishments. In the attached file related to this question, I intentionally included a picture of this test, as the document critically reviews science. Additionally, I mentioned that "Pascal's Wager serves as an example of the integration of religious narratives into philosophy." Pascal, influenced by widespread religious dogma, sought to provide proof for his belief. I perceive the MUE in a similar vein as Pascal's wager in essence. Have scientists attempted to produce a mobile phone, an evolving technology, through a comparable experiment? Or have they endeavored to create stuffed teddy bears in a similar manner? Never, ever! However, under a misguided philosophy, these scientists regard the MUE as a groundbreaking experiment. This is why I believe that selective science operates in the shadow of metaphysics.
For the second question, please refer to my last paragraph in the preceding comment, the attached document, and its references.
I have read your "God. Valid Scientific Conclusions" and are currently writing a critique of it. I suggest that you read the latest papers on Scientific Philosophy and how it currently works. I have found the following more relevant than the ones you relate to. Popper (The logic of Scientific discovery", Kuhn "The structure of scientific revolution" and Fuller Kuhn Vs Popper". Popper looks at the disprove hypothesis approach while Klun looks at how this is applied in the field of science discovery. Fuller compares the two. Basically, humans observe things and then try and explain them. Ages ago gods (powerful entities) were used to explain them, and "religion" developed and expanded to say how all things ARE and SHOULD BE. Things changed and people began to have their own views on the how and why. Hence there were a LOT of explanations for an observation. Some sillier than others. How do we separate them and say "THIS ONE is correct explanation to the observation" Popper showed us how. We try and DISPROVE it. If we cannot disprove it, it is the answer to the observation till we can disprove it. However, there is occasionally a NUMBER of Hypothesizes that explain the observation which have yet to be disproved. Cosmological observations are currently the major example of this situation. These are your "gods" and nothing is wrong about them being in existence. That is how science works - people using their imagination as Einstein did to explain the mysteries of the universe. At 76 I do this by the streets at night contemplating aloud these mysteries. People nearby tend to get alarmed about a stranger talking aloud to himself and void him/her. But that's the life of doing science and not woke.
Dear Dave Kabay
Thank you for your comment. I find myself questioning the impact of the latest scientific philosophy when there seems to be a persistent attachment to outdated and unscientific viewpoints that we proudly uphold. In the following document, I have made references to Popper, expressing my admiration for his philosophy of science. However, it remains evident that many scientists continue to favour Hume, particularly within the realm of Darwinian evolution, and seem unwilling to let go of this perspective.
Allow me to illustrate how Hume's philosophy has significantly influenced our scientific perspective using the attached simple electrical arrangement. Has it ever crossed your mind to attempt recreating this electrical arrangement by combining copper, polymer, acid, glass, and all other necessary materials in a jar, shaking it, and heating it in the hope of building the circuit by chance sooner or later? I'm sure you find this notion amusing.
In contrast, consider the citric acid cycle, discovered within the matrix of the mitochondria. It's noteworthy that numerous scientists still endeavour to demonstrate that this intricate cycle is the result of chance and time.
Warmest regards
Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?
He is not going to read those more modern(1935) articles (Hume wrote in 1780) and, from his writings I've read and his rejection of the second part of my reply, he doesn't think his "gods" are just the "explanations", from the hilarious to "shit that's a fantastic idea", of all Homo sapiens from the most "primitive" to the modern from the stupid to the brilliant have for the "observations" H sapiens has of the environment in which they exist. They can be called "hypotheses", after Popper, that need to be proved wrong before they can be accepted as "true" at a particular time and remains true till it might be prove wrong at a TIME in the future.
OK lets get serious. TIME and CHANCE influence on evolution.
At the time of Hume, Darwin and all others, the earth, according to Bishop Ussher and supported by the number of the begats in the bible (word of the onegod), began on 23rd October 4004 BC and is celebrated as Mole Day after Avogadros Number which was initially a god (ie a hypotheses) but is accepted as True as it has NOT yet been Disproved). Today the 4004 BC date hypothesis has been disproved and the figure accepted for the age of the earth is 4.54 billion Years +or - 50 million (note the modern scientific error term). Plenty of time for things biological to occur on earth or it life arose in the universe then that is 13.7 billion years +or- 200 million years. TIME can be adequate for biological evolution to be true if TIME is an important factor for evolution.
CHANCE. This is the simple bit. We don't have to think of comparing CHANCE to the imaging mixing things together and shaking the bottle till a battery appears or visiting a car museum to see how a car evolved. Its just the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. If you got the genes that produce a particular phenotype-either from a mutation or from cross breeding of your successful ancestors- you survive the environment you live in and have lots of kids that also survive you can be called one of "The Fittest" and leave your mark (good or bad) on the world. If you don't, your atoms will still circulate in the universe unless you have Faith in a GOD who can then take you to Heavan.
The Time and Chance hypotheses have not yet been disproved and are true scientific facts. Since Darwin, all the research on the relation of these 2 hypotheses on evolution has not disproved them and they are regards as scientific fact until an "Einstein" biologist goes and sees a movie or floats in a bath or has an apple fall on his/her head thinks of an experiment that could disprove the fact of Evolution.
As we use to say in school Geometry Ipso Facto (I think)
Dear Dave Kabay
In my presentation, I've addressed this particular issue. I recognize the existence of time and chance. There were indeed ancient gods-of-the-gaps that existed, such as handmade statues or the Sun. However, my contention lies in the reluctance to attribute superpower-like qualities to these elements. Enlightenment philosophers, including Hume, bestowed upon time and chance extraordinary abilities without concrete proof, a notion that was later embraced by scientists with a fervour resembling religious faith. This prompts my inquiry for evidence.
As an example, if a complex creature such as a bear could theoretically emerge by chance and time, why do we not anticipate the same system effortlessly create a much simpler object, like a stuffed teddy bear? This line of questioning seeks to underscore the need for empirical support for assertions regarding the creative potential of time and chance.
Hello Ziaedin; Your second paragraph... Stuffed teddy bears don't have a mutable genetic storage system. There are no teddy bear gene pools for natural selection to act on. There is no teddy bear germ line for natural selection to act on. Maybe I missed something. Hmmm. Regards, Jim Des Lauriers
Dear James Des Lauriers
Certainly, we are delving into two distinct issues outlined in the PowerPoint presentation and its references.
- Firstly, let's consider the origin of life.
- Secondly, on the topic of evolution, the prevailing theory is Neo-Darwinism. This theory implies that we have a genetic code that occasionally mutates, resulting in the development of more advanced creatures. I encourage you to refer to the presentation for a comprehensive understanding of my argument. Additionally, I reiterate my response from "Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics."
“Neo-Darwinian line of thinking is similar to believing that any computer operating system such as MS-Windows, Ubuntu, Mac OS or Fedora were produced by chance and each new version are also based on minute random changes which can happen during copying or other inaccuracies. This is exactly the contribution of Darwin’s descent with modification and the theory of natural selection to biology.”
Dear James Des Lauriers
The assertion is that what biologists, including Richard Dawkins, deem as science is, in reality, based on David Hume's unscientific philosophy embellished with just-so stories.
Dear James Des Lauriers
- Please also take a moment to review my presentation, particularly page 12, where I clarify that mutation and natural selection are predominantly deleterious, contrary to the portrayal by Neo-Darwinists as a driving force for change. To illustrate, consider a bear inside a car. Neo-Darwinists posit that this presence somehow propels the car industry forward.
- It's crucial to note that Artificial Selection (AS) is unrelated to mutation, a fact conveniently overlooked by Neo-Darwinists. Interestingly, AS was initially presented as proof of evolution by Darwin and his contemporaries.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy
- Tissue