BULLETIN ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY TWO
 

DARWIN,  EXCELLENT OBSERVER

BUT IN HIS MAJOR HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY,

AN ALMOST HOPELESS LOGICIAN AT BASIC LEVEL

Ten Scientific Method Failures at various levels

 

Despite vast praises as a scientist, Darwin is one of the worst misleaders of all time in the discipline of scientific method.

He could notice little things like changes in the beaks of certain birds in certain places at certain times, but miss entirely the whole point of the issue, misleading others like an absentee school boy parading outside the school gate.

As we see his religious side gradually slipping, round about the time of his  investigatory voyage as gentleman comrade for the Captain, and thereafter till the authority of the Bible went, then the Old Testament, then the New Testament to which he came to refer slightingly, so his delusive deadweight increased to the point of substituting method for power. You need both, at the relevant level.

First, if you are interested in beginnings, how do you get time, in which things can be imagined to change ? or space in which they can proliferate nicely to allow variation ? or power to make atomic components orbit, and planets do the same ? or geometrical facility to arrange things so that they operate throughout the universe, and of course, the creative dynamic to make the method work!

Before all that however, how do you in your mind kick out God and leave the works just noted orphaned ? If so, where did they come from ?

That, the reader will recall or realise is what we are talking about. Darwin does not appear to have noticed the point, or been concerned about it, if he did in any methodical way.

When such things occur as the omission of logical ground for the entire matter in hand, and the task is explanation for it, your work is irrelevant. That is the case with Darwin. It is necessary to keep to the point. WHERE and from what did ANYTHING come in his scenario, if indeed it is at this level a scenario at all.

It is in vain to talk of method of advance, when there is nothing to advance. And who is the 'you' in this case. Darwin moves to his idea of notions and apparatus of the most brilliant kind strewn throughout our visible universe, and this he confronts with a removal not only of its life support, but its reason for existence. If then reason is being invoked, in nice little reasonable systems, how is it that at the outset it is provoked by being completely invalidated, bundled out, ignored, without ground debunked by itself, an import from nowhere, a motherless child in a vacancy universe, product of nothing. Neither form nor function is derivable from nothing, even by degrees.

In scientific method Darwin's work is in all this, an abundant failure - 0/10 (1). But that is not all. ASSUME matter and power and time and space and force and substance and geometric arrangements and so forth, into existence, and then consider the next step - 0/10 (2) in scientific method so far, and now bring life on. But of course 'you' were not there.

On the Darwin model nobody seems to be around. Well then, ignoring the false pretences often refuted concerning Miller*1, who intervened only in creating non-life when all is said and done as shown on this site, how did it arrive ? Indeed, Alex  Williams has pointed out that even if the various inter-related and co-functional parts for a living cell were brought into being and properly arranged and activated or made ready for this, the time for enveloping it all with the membrane of containment would be impossibly small to keep them there! But past all that, who makes all the parts (until developed and enveloped), and with what foresight of the whole, before its working is foreshadowed in any way ?

So to this question, 0/10 again (3): there is no explanation logically present.

Next, even at that, more generally, we ask: Who or what made the specialised pseudo-organic centres in the cell, such as the mitochondrion for energy ? There are, as it were, cells, that is specialised production centres WITHIN the cell. Without there being any advantage in vast aeons (according to the myth) in the rudely developing parts, there is the result: they persevere, even though not personal in order to do so, or having courage or any other such quality, or knowledge or even a sense of direction. Such hings are irrelevant in the scenario

Thus another 0/10 score (4) for Darwin.

Accordingly, passing on, just from nothing and nowhere all the missing aspects so far, who or what is the source, reason for and explanation of the alleged upward gradualism of ... advance, which Darwin assumes; or how improve what has not begun! or how make a new balcony on a house that is not there. No architect would be beguiled. So where are we left!

First Darwin supplied no evidence of advance in the first place, setting to variation, the task of creation. They are not the same. Matter is never shown doing this, as if it were a god with mentality and exquisite knowledge. Life really IS wonderful, and it needs a wonderful source, sufficient for it. In the ideological relic of Darwin, for the advances assumed in various living contrivances (are you allowed on this scenario to use the norm in such matters, and call it 'creation' ?), no such source is to be found. But Darwin's ideas are no substitute for existential reality, for actual being physically there, visible, audible, tangible or in whatever mode of observation relates to the particular case. It needs an ADEQUATE source. Again, the score in terms of scientific method, 0/10 (5).

Nor is the case different in the brilliantly clothed, enabled and ultra-sophisticated  continual upgrade, in terms of production facilities. None of these appear. The pure horror of it now is this. He talks of the well known fact that in some contests those with overall and consistent superiority of powers often prevail. It is called survival of the fittest, but that really begs the question. Who ARE the fittest in the staggeringly complex status quo ? It depends on what you have in mind, and what is now here, now there, operative in a given situation. It is not easy to differentiate it from the survival of the survivors. But this is not here the point.

It is this. Where or what are the means of production in this integrated existence model ?

Darwin's dream makes no provision for the most magnificent production with NO means of production. Just let the least successful members of a category of living things which  you have in mind, depart, like the lower members of a learning class of students, and suddenly or gradually, it does not matter which, you find yourself surrounded with geniuses, persons MORE advanced that were ever in the Class  before. But this is not rational. Removing a mess does not create by that act a marvel, moving as if by a flick of the will of the observer, always lifting things up a notch. After all there was on this model, no observer. And nothing is not any good at these things, still both unimpressive and unproductive even when it is good for nothing.

This categorical omission of productive resources again brings into being, this time a very emphatic failure, 0/10 (6). How in the world can checking out what is weak, invent what is an advance ? Minus is minus, but it does not by mere waiting, become a plus. Somehow the sign has to be changed, substituting normal deterioration for progressive output, and this in a system which is not there. Thus purging a poor dairy does neither rebuild it, nor contribute to new erection on site; nor is cleansing creative of construction.

   Does imagination create by a dream ? With those willing to use hands and brains and plans and organisation and entrepreneurial ability and having adequate education and power, yes then it may do so. But these are not a component of nothing. Indeed, imagining such powers operative, or deeming them unnecessary, is either for some other world (this one requires constructive ACTION)*2, or else paralysis of reason; and in all sobriety, this Darwinian hypothesis is here of the order of fairy story. These little child-charming creations may be good, but not as part of scientific method. Score for Darwin once again, 0/10 (7). This is not only for a casual slip, but applicable for the entire design (yes, Darwin is designing this) itself. It is like having a factory without workers or works, or an imaginative nation which never got around to actually DO anything.

Another step in scientific method (in terms of which, used adroitly, science advanced both in performance and in prestige), but one again marred by Darwin, is this. If you make an hypothesis concerning what you propose, here then explanation is the focus, and it MUST be verified. IF this be so, what follows ? If A or B or C is deemed to follow in terms of reason, then a failure in any one of them means what ? It means this of the hypothesis: AS IT STANDS, and until what is now missing is found (if it exists): it founders. It does not work. It is not fact. Darwin noted that on his own  basis there should be an almost limitless supply of VERY gradually upgrading fossils; but to his credit, he noted that this was so far from being the case, that it was a most vulnerable or unsatisfactory aspect of his work, his idea, his hypothesis.

It was so stark a confrontation that Professor W. R. Thompson, the Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, noted that the position of such absence is still the case today. One rather feels like decrying, Evidential absenteeism will not be tolerated in this institution. That is, the institution called Scientific Method is still just such an omission. It simply gives bogus prestige to a failure in type, numbers, necessary gradation on the DH (Darwinian hypothesis) and a substitution of hype.

The fossils in view still fail to be seen except in the imagination*3. It may be said that the case MIGHT change ? If it ever should do so, let it. With scientific method, you examine a case on its merits, not your imagination. In the meantime, it both lags and lacks and the hypothesis has to be rejected, withdrawn, not laid down, and certainly not categorisable as scientific. If left behind despite this,  in the DH allowed to remain in place,  it is an anomaly. It was and is. Score for Darwin:  0/10 (8).

Thus the (relatively) slow decline of Darwin's approach to the Bible and to Christ is matched by the continual list of such utter failures. As he departed at the religious level, so the holes in his hypothetical 'socks' grew greater. There was no one to look after them.

The modern array of genome and genetics and the CONTINUED working of the Second law of Thermodynamics (which talks of the decrease of specialised powers in a given  closed system over time, not their increase, and which remains a basic aspect of scientific method) does not depart; but its results continue dominantly. The "insight" of Darwin grows more and more discordant with reality, as now known, as time moves on - 0/10 (9).

From this, comes increasing cause for correction of his notion, that still frequently held up by devotees, more and more blatantly; for by many its failure is still not being heeded. Leaving corpses lying around does not smell of mental hygiene. His procedure was in his method always a generative gap*2, but now it is it is even more a ludicrous leap.  Moreover, it faces a constant decline in the work NOT done by NOTHING, but wrought in fascinating and even staggering brilliance by a thoroughly and comprehensively competent Creator, equipped for it, a work which ages, as Isaiah noted with great accuracy (Isaiah 51:6), like an old coat. That is its design, and with such deterioration we are all familiar.

This aspect has become a new emphasis in the field with particular reference to the labours of such specialists, old and young, as Dr J.C. Sanford and Dr Nathaniel French  as seen in Genetic Entropy and Replacing Darwin respectively. It is NOT ONLY that the advances imagined do not occur, are not attested, that their background is not there to observe in any case; but that there is a pronounced increase in net mutation fault. As generation after generation is brought into being at birth, then multiple burdensome net mutation occurs we are told, in considerable numbers every time, and it is cumulative. There is therefore reduction in accuracy as each new production of people occurs.

There is and has to be decline of what was produced, but not without a Producer, in stricken orders (as in the DNA) as time has worn on and copy on copy has proceeded (each generation time with many new errors, though for all that the quality of copy is very impressive). These magnificently  multiplied DNA commands for building each generation, despite the self-editing facilities always at work, have come,  but not without a Commander (0/10 -10). They are in measure leaving, each site impoverished, but not without reason. Polish as you will, the same will occur in your car and brain. It follows the law noted above, and this law does not quaver. In fact, there comes a climax, as Isaiah 51:6, Matthew 24:35, and the Lord Himself completes the schedule. 

They, these intricate and interwoven, mutually adapted commands, are departing in operating efficiency at a good clip. This is a continual process, inbuilt and part of the operation. It is done in time, and done systematically, and Jesus Christ prophesied it (Matthew 24:35). Indeed, Dr Sanford sounds a warning to our race concerning this active deterioration (not advance) of its physiological base. The position reminds one of Christ's prediction in Matthew 24:22: "unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved."  Attrition comes from many sources, and strikingly from sin, and the cumulative consequences mount.

The day of Darwin is finished, but this idea of his never was worth the light of day, however many OTHER contributions he may have made.

 

NOTES

*1

The much touted Miller-Urey experiment not only did not produce life, or anything like its complexity, but was shepherded by human invention. If God is denied, then man before his own creation was not there to do any shepherding! See NOGO31#endnote2 for review of this point.

 

*2

And this from what empirically and in principle alike, cannot create itself, especially before it is there to do it.  Such is the position with nothing, even in its more inventive moods: basis nothing, result the same: so even these have nowhere to BE! and it is no less so with 'nature' when it is set to shoulder the burden of operating though non-existent, to invent itself so that it can be called a 'source.' 


*3

A recent notable expos is to be found in the magazine, Creation, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019, pp.44ff., eminently clear, while the work,  Contested Bones, Christopher Rupe and Dr John Sanford is impressively thorough in this chosen field. For the latter, this is a fitting addition to his broader work on Genetic Entropy. See especially Bulletins 39, 111 and 121 on the up-to-date, down-to-earth, intensively researched contributions  from Dr Nathaniel Jeanson with Ph.D. in the field from Cornell University (in his recent work, Replacing Darwin), and Dr J.C. Sanford, Emeritus Professor from Cornell University (Genomic Entropy).