Home

Main stream evolutionists would say that scientific evidences support the theories. History shows that wrong scientific theories or pseudoscience could have sufficient evidence to support them. Marxism, Leninism, Nazism, and geocentrism, all have so-called scientific evidences. In fact, evidences are just interpretation of phenomena, not facts. The same observation can be interpreted with many ways. Nature of interpretation is highly influenced by what interpreter believes.

The Marxist’s theory of capitalism was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century. Marx predicted that wages would fall as greedy capitalists exploited workers to obtain more profits. While an increase in wages was also consistent with Marxism; as capitalists propped up the system with bribery. Therefore, Marx’s theory of capitalism could not be considered scientific by the Popperian criteria, as it can justify any outcome of the capitalist’s behaviors.

The Marx' theory is considered a pseudoscience basedon the Popperian criteria

The Marx’ theory is considered a pseudoscience based
on the Popperian criteria

Invalidation requires prediction. If a result is not consistent with a prediction, then the theory is invalidated. Ohm’s law could be disproved if voltage is not equal to current multiplied by resistance. However, Neo-Darwinism is consistent with every imaginable outcome. By the Popperian criteria, it is a pseudoscience.

Characterization of Neo-Darwinism as a pseudoscience does not mean that natural selection or evolution itself wrong. Instead, it only says that instantaneous mechanisms are only valid mechanisms, whereas others (RMNS and GI) working, but not lead to speciation.

Predictions do not have to be deterministic, and they could be statistically true. Persons with college degree will make more money than ones without it. The prediction, however, does not mean everyone with a college degree will earn more money than those with a high school diploma only. Bill Gates, the richest person in America, has no college degree. This statement could be confirmed or invalidated by comparing average incomes from 500 persons with college degree and 500 ones without by random sampling.

Scientific theory might be wrong. Ones can say that persons with college degree will make less money than ones without it. This statement could be disproved by comparing average incomes from two groups of persons with and without college degree.

Mayr considered that GI might be the most common mechanism; however, this idea is not falsifiable, as neither the nominator (how many species has been formed by GI in the past, in any) nor the denominator (how many species has been formed in the past), is known. In his books and other books  written by famous Darwinists (J. Coyne “Why evolution is true”, Speciation”), there are cases of sympatry, allopatry, peripatry, parapatry, which means that speciation can occur in anywhere you can think of. There is no way to find it wrong.

History did not provide Darwin the opportunity to find out correct mechanism

“One predicts something on the basis of a theory, checks to see if the prediction turns out true or false, and then rejects or retains one’s theory on basis of the results. But how can one make genuine predictions with Darwinism? Who could possibly predict what will happen to the elephant’s trunk twenty-five million years down the road? In the Newtonian case, one had a paradigmatic instance of a theory which integrates from many different areas—which exhibits a consilience of induction—and which therefore was judged as a whole (Ruse, M. 2003).”

Darwin has no such luxury. His theory fails in many fields of scientific discovery. Many developments, not foreseen by Darwin, provide severe tests of the theory. Darwin thought pangenesis the basis on hereditary. It stated that hereditary information was carried by tiny particles that bud from cells throughout a person’s body. These particles or ‘gemmules’ migrated into the reproductive organs prior to fertilization. Thus, every cell in the body contributed to the constitution of the offspring. However, Mendelian genetics indicated that hereditary units are discreet, not mixed.

Current biology has known that hereditary materials stored in reproductive cells (sperm and egg), which is isolated from somatic cells. In other words, no particles or ‘gemmules’ migrated into the reproductive organs to have any impact on next generation.

“Darwin used variation in domestic animals as one of the major arguments for his theory… The most striking example of variation in domestic animals is surely the amazing range of dogs. Darwin thought that the various breeds of dog were descended from several different wide species…and it seems he was simple unable to believe that a single species could be the source of such variety. …. All breeds of dog are interfertile, but some cross, for example between 1 kg Chihuahua and a 75 kg Great Dane, are prevented by the disparity in size (Patterson, C. 1999b). “

Apparently, to Darwin, morphology of animals is the criterion to differentiate one species from another. The biological species concept became accepted a few decades after his death.
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other …. it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake (Dawin, Charles, 1859).

The debate between creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) versus Neo-Darwinism is not religion versus science. Instead, it is one belief versus another or one belief versus pseudoscience. The difference is that Neo-Darwinism is masked as science and it wastes public funding and resources. On the other hand, creationism or ID is a self-sustained belief system unsupported by tax dollars.

References

Charles Darwin 1988 (1859) On the Origin of Species in The Works of Charles Darwin edited by Paul H. Barrett and R. B. Freeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press vol. 15 page 39

Mayr, Ernst 1998. One long augment. Harvard Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Mayr, Ernst 2001. What evolution is. pp. 221-222. Basic Books, New York.

Patterson, Colin 1999a. Evolution 2nd ed. pp. 117, Comstock Publishing Ass. Cornell University Ithaca, New York.

Patterson, Colin1999b. Evolution 2nd ed. pp. 7-8, Comstock Publishing Ass. University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Ruse M. 2003. Evolution Is Testable and Scientific in Evolution-Fact or Fiction. Pp. 130-140. Greenhaven Press, New York.

Simon J., and Rispe, Claude & Sunnucks, Paul. 2002. Ecology and evolution of sex in aphids. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:34-39.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s