Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

The fruitfulness criterion in science:

Many consider Francis Bacon to be the founder of the scientific method. He put the ‘fruitfulness’ criterion for determining whether something is science or not as follows: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” (Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum)

There are a lot of good and useful results issuing from the pragmatic field of biologically inspired design - that is, technological designs based on the ingenious designs of nature in biology. Contrasted with this, what has Darwinism done for the world lately? 

"....the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct?
.........................
Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."

From this 2005 article, entitled Why Do We Invoke Darwin?, by Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

The fruitfulness criterion in science:

Many consider Francis Bacon to be the founder of the scientific method. He put the ‘fruitfulness’ criterion for determining whether something is science or not as follows: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” (Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum)

There are a lot of good and useful results issuing from the pragmatic field of biologically inspired design - that is, technological designs based on the ingenious designs of nature in biology. Contrasted with this, what has Darwinism done for the world lately? 


From this 2005 article, entitled Why Do We Invoke Darwin?, by Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Given the main focus of this forum is psi research, I’m unsure how highly fruitfulness rates.

That said, your article looks terribly dated in view of recent advances in CRISPR technologies alone.

...your article looks terribly dated in view of recent advances in CRISPR technologies alone.

The discovery of the CRISPR-Cas procaryote microbial adaptive immune system was followed by the development of a genome editing tool modeled on it, so this is a prime example of biologically inspired design.

 in view of recent advances in CRISPR technologies alone.

OHHHH Yeah   From the linked article

 From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. - PHILIP SKELL  

An interesting article surveying the current declining and turbulent state of Darwinian evolutionary biology:   

"While Christians have long challenged Charles Darwin’s theory of undirected evolution, few appreciate the true extent of the challenge beyond the church. Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s theory is inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.

The plain truth from the literature, conferences, expert perception, and a bit of anecdote for color, is that current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be. Not only this, but it has serious and increasing skeptics and challengers from within the secular scientific community.
................
In the past decade, the works of professor Michael Behe, Steven Meyer, and others have given more life to the debate on the national stage. In “Darwin Devolves,” Behe points to the process of mutations to describe the inadequacy of an unguided materialist process to add information. Meyer explores the Cambrian explosion and the complexity of the cell to show the biodiversity and complexity we observe, and notes that natural processes have never been observed to produce such results.

Importantly, these two men, and many others, believe in the standard multibillion-year timeline for the Earth and make their findings based on deduction of natural evidence rather than starting from authority in scripture or elsewhere. The growth of the intelligent design community is noteworthy, but not as interesting as those who are apart from it, secular, and nonetheless find Darwinian evolution to contain serious flaws.

Behe explained that, “Based on conversations with my own colleagues at Lehigh [University], dozens of other biologists, and news stories in journals I would guesstimate that a third or more of biologists are quite skeptical that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology.” The growing literature speaks for itself.
.................
The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution. Rather, they find problems with the explanatory value of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing, and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life."

The Third Way folks seem pretty adamant they don't think there's anything "supernatural" going on? =>

It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.

That said IDers criticisms as they stand seem to suggest, at best, something like evolutionary panenthiesm, or Nagel's non-theistic teleological principles. But one could argue for some kind of animism as well, or some Psi-related explanation. And the latter may be explicable through mechanisms of quantum/magento- biology.

Of course the latter, in showing a mechanism for some variety of Psi, would be a major paradigm breakthrough in itself just not the one IDers seem to hope for. Though it's hard to reconcile, in any case, the idea of God piddling around with DNA after creating that very DNA and the processes involved with evolution. At best such a "God" would be a little-g god, or some spirit(s) playing around at the time of the Cambrian explosion...

The Third Way folks seem pretty adamant they don't think there's anything "supernatural" going on? =>


That said IDers criticisms as they stand seem to suggest, at best, something like evolutionary panenthiesm, or Nagel's non-theistic teleological principles. But one could argue for some kind of animism as well, or some Psi-related explanation. And the latter may be explicable through mechanisms of quantum/magento- biology.

Of course the latter, in showing a mechanism for some variety of Psi, would be a major paradigm breakthrough in itself just not the one IDers seem to hope for. Though it's hard to reconcile, in any case, the idea of God piddling around with DNA after creating that very DNA and the processes involved with evolution. At best such a "God" would be a little-g god, or some spirit(s) playing around at the time of the Cambrian explosion...

Adding to the Cambrian mentioning.
The Cambrian "explosion" is a misnomer. It's termed that because when compared to other evolutionary periods it was relatively rapid. That so-called rapidity took 10-20 million years, not mear decades, centuries or even thousands of years. There are competing theories on the cause(s) but they all have in common environmental change. Also continued new fossil discoveries are bringing clarity where these new animals came from morphologically.

An interesting article surveying the current declining and turbulent state of Darwinian evolutionary biology:   

As you know, my take on this claims there is a clear-cut functional role mind plays in the behavior of living things.  Further, that this informational "how" works to creates pathways for messages to be used by following generations of a species.

Darwinian evolution - as a term in this time - means that the primary cause of evolution was random to fitness.  Of course, reading Darwin reveals that was not at all what he thought.  At Darwin's death he was already left behind; and it was George Romanes who carried forth Darwin's emphasis on mental evolution.

Neo-Darwinism is now DOA, as it was formulated with Weismann's barrier.  (a direct response to Romanes and Darwin's challenges)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49458

An interesting article surveying the current declining and turbulent state of Darwinian evolutionary biology:   

If you read the primary sources, the disagreement isn’t about the collection of mechanisms which contribute to variation, selection, and heredity. On that there is general agreement. The disagreement is about naming rights for that collection.

Linda

If you read the primary sources, the disagreement isn’t about the collection of mechanisms which contribute to variation, selection, and heredity. On that there is general agreement. The disagreement is about naming rights for that collection.

Linda

That it is just Nominalism being the difference between the modern theory of evolution and NeoDarwinism (based on the Weismann Barrier) is like believing that Dixie is coming back!

As process models - one corresponds to the data and another is shown as a failure.  The genetic systems of living things do show "Lamarckian" traits.  Phenotypes change when information learned in the mind of an organism creates instinctive traits in off-spring (as Darwin documented).  Further, modern research shows that it is not only behavioral traits, but ontogenetic (developmental) chemistry.

Linda, in your view of evolution is mind there from the very start?  Or was it a magical materials science or quantum physics event that caused intentional behavior like -> go or -> eat.  

Or even, can you name an old-line scientist speaking up for Darwin's view of Mental Evolution and the Lamarkian events he observed as part of the modern synthesis?

If there are these physical events where frankystien becomes a single cell organism from electrochemical sparks - please just send the link.  Till then, I will stick with "it from bit" and think the mind evolved by organizing matter with natural informational processes.

If there were something like a guidebook for creatures, I think the first line would read like a biblical commandment: Make thy information larger.  - Werner Loewenstein in Touchstone of Life.

https://www.amazon.com/Touchstone-Life-I...0195140575