Essay 1
The Illusion of the Word‘ Evolution’
Revised Version Jan 2021
An introduction to the many different facets of evolutionary thinking – scientific and philosophical – illuminating what evolution can mean within different contexts. Using references from the scientific literature and educational sources, this essay draws out numerous inadequacies and contradictions in Darwinian theory, and explains how Darwinism uses equivocal language to blur the boundaries between fact, theory and belief. These boundaries are further eroded when the idea of evolution becomes an adjunct to certain commonly held philosophical, religious, or anti-religious world views.
To read the full essay click on the PDF link below. Scroll down to leave a comment about this essay. New comments may take a few days to appear.
Read the PDF version: Illusion of the Word Evol 1-21
Some of the science is beyond me, but my take away is that people or students are not given the opportunity to criticize evolutionary theory or think about other views. It’s like global warming, where the public are only fed one opinion and discouraged from thinking for themselves.
Being neither a scientist or philosopher I have never challenged Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection and have always taken his explanation as read. I was not aware that some have challenged his theories.
I knew that Darwin spent a few years going round the World and that a call in at the Galapagos Islands cemented his beliefs.
Our Christian Religion taught us that God created all creatures great and small and other religions taught that their God, too, was the creator of all life but, with the advance of universal education over the last few centuries, more secular views emerged. Darwin’s theories made sense.
A good article, Nick.
I have always called evolution a pseudoscience, The greatest myth ever perpetrated on science and mankind ! It’s a complex framework of assumptions with lots of artists drawings of how they think we should have looked. Then there is the elusive mythical common ancestor that nobody knows or has ever seen. Are people and academia really this gullible and stupid to believe and accept this theorytale that beggars belief, logic, and reason! It’s like they’ve been hypnotised
You are a superb writer. The “blind watchmaker” remains unemployed…. as well he should be. Happy Holidays.
I agree with it. People are afraid of doubt and uncertainty, and don’t want to change the status quo. Believing evolution is the easiest solution.
Your paper, it seems to me, presents a well-written and absorbing line of argument, demonstrating a careful use of logic and put together with admirable clarity. That’s a polite way of saying that even a complete non-scientist like me could follow the thread of your argument with no trouble at all! I’m not competent to assess the validity of your conclusions, but I enjoyed reading the paper very much and found myself quite willing to be carried along by your line of attack.
I was particularly interested in what you have to say about Richard Dawkins. I admit that I’ve never read any of his books, but I do remember hearing him speak, several years ago, at a day conference for sixth form ‘A’ level Philosophy & Ethics students; I thought he came across as peevish and arrogant, and I was agreeably surprised to discover that the students felt exactly the same! I quite thought that his strident anti-religious sentiment might have appealed to them, but they saw through him straight away and found Prof. Keith Ward, who spoke after Dawkins, far more convincing in his arguments. I think it’s extraordinary that Dawkins, while protesting that religious belief is hopelessly dogmatic and unscientific and therefore not worthy of serious consideration, is himself utterly dogmatic in his statements; the term ‘fundamentalist’, so easily applied to religious zealots, could equally well be applied, it seems to me, to Prof. Dawkins!
A very compelling, well written case. The acceptance of evolution is engrained in our education and I’d personally never thought to challenge this. Having read this essay I feel sceptical that New animal groups and species could have originated through mutation from completely different groups.
It leaves major questions about a long and commonly accepted “fact”.
Good to challenge theories that are accepted without critical analysis
But the theory of Evolution hasn’t been accepted without critical analysis. The theory of Evolution has been rigorously tested by scientists over decades. Scientists eventually use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Jim – Objections to the testability and adequacy of Darwinian theory have also persisted over decades; many such objections, collated from numerous scientific authors, are presented in this essay. Choosing not to address these issues is a position of evasion, not one of critical analysis.
@Jim This is a ridiculous statement and shows how much guillable you are, not only darwinism has failed miserably to provide any realistic evidence for the ridiculous fairy tales it claimed but the entire worldview is built upon the false religion of naturalism with nothing factual about it and immeditely collapses when it comes to actual observable science. From the nonsense of nothing making everything to everything else, there has never been a single missing link found because they do not exist, no kind has ever evolved into another, and even microevolution is a lie since the actual term is called speciation or adaptation, there has never been any new information added but only combination and loss of previous information, and then darwinists resorted into creating imaginary fake apemen, cavemen and other fake animals which were all debunked but virtually all of the fields that darwinism claims to have evidence for are only mere wrong hypothesess and deceptions based on their twisted worldview which is the false religion of naturalism, the ridiculously long dates such as millions of years (as excuse to hide the nonexistense of darwinism) are another long exposed lie which hangs on the most innacurate dating method of all (carbondating) while the majority of dating methods are heavily in favor of much younger dates within the biblical timeframe. The real evidence has always heavily pointed towards an intelligent designer, a creator, because it has always been the truth, but the damage has already been done and people lose their jobs for exposing the darwinism nonsense. This is not about science at all its about the false religion of naturalism and its nonsense, people are being swallowed by their guilt and corruption and they try to believe the most absurd things as a failed attempt to escape from reality of God’s Judgement but noone can escape from the eternal torment.
I think there is still much to discover about evolution. There is not enough evidence of its popular scientific theories. I found that many of the points in this essay revealed the inaccuracy of these theories and I think we have to accept that evolution is still not fully understood.
Very well written and argued points. I have never really thought about biological evolution before; the theory does appear to be more belief than science.
The conclusion of “we don’t understand” is highly plausible.