<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Evolutionism, creationism and reasonable doubt
Review: Ernst Mayr has made a living (99 years old) on the myth that Charles Darwin is the most influent thinker of modernity. The point is that Darwin has provided the ultimate answers to the basic questions of life, without God. By doing that Darwin has made atheism scientific and religion anti-scientific by definition. This, in fact, may be the dominant mantra of modernity.
But that's not because of the genious of men like Darwin or Mayr, for that matter. This is because the irrational credulity of modernists. A simple reality check should be enough to show that evolutionists have not overcome a "reasonable doubt" test: 1) The Big Bang is not a theory of creation, because it assumes the existence of matter, energy, space and time. Besides, it cannot account for stars, galaxies and the solar system. Of course, there are many just-so stories, but they all lack empirical evidence. Besides, big explosions are not known by their creative capacity, as 9/11 clearly shows. What's more, Big Bang theories stand in contradiction with the first and second law of thermodinamics. But evolutionists never give up, because they know that with some imagination everyone can tell a good story. Ernst Mayr is a good example of good just-so story telling. He recently admited to the pure speculation that has guided his work. 2) "Allopatry" and "founder effect" theories of speciation , a la Ernst Mayr, don't prove evolution. Actually they are important conceptual tools in creationist circles. Creationists are thankful to Mayr because, unwillingly, he has explained important features of the creation, flood, dispersion and rapid speciation model. Those theories don't explain the origin of new DNA sequences of information. They assume the pre-existence of DNA information. Ernst Mayrs texts, like any other text, have a mental qualilty that is irreducible to the mere letters in the text or even to the mere sequence of letters. That is, even if a monkey could write the works of Ernst Mayr by chance (Mayr would probably believe it could if given enough time!), we would still need a mental code outside the text to atribute meaning and purpose to that text. DNA information is not just a sequence of nucleotides. The sequence as a meaning, produces action and realizes a purpose. That's information! 3) The fossil record shows no sign of evolution. Millions of transitional forms should be expected, but we only have a handful of higly controversial ones, even by strictly evolutionist standards. We have many living fossils and polystratic fossils, but the links are still missing. Besides, the fossils cannot prove evolution, since they themselves are dated based on a priori evolutionistic assumptions. The fossil record shows signs of abruptness, diversity and stasis, as well as catastrophe. It is a witness to the biblical global flood (and flood related catastrophes), and not to evolution. 4) The study of molecular machines is showing irreducible complexity and complex specified information to an extent Charles Darwin could not even dream of. Charles Darwin said that irreducible complex living systems would disprove his theory. Well, that's the case! Evolution simply didin't happen. Small variation within kinds is not evolution. Darwin only saw small variation within kinds. He never saw evolution. Neither have we! 5) Probability theory says that random mutations and natural selection cannot possibly create the design features we see in nature. All scientists together cannot fully understand and put together a single cell! Evolutionism cannot account for the origin of life, of DNA information and the fine-tuning of the Universe for life on earth. How can evolutionists say that they have answeres all basic questions of life if they cannot even account for the origins of life? Miller-Urey were successful in synthesising twe amino-acids, in very unstable conditions! 6) DNA/RNA is the most complex system of information storage and processing. Evolutionists want us all to believe that it is a product of chance. How? DNA needs an enzyme to exist, and this enzyme needs DNA to exist. Have evolutionists been able to explain all this? Of course not. Scientists are realizing that Junk DNA is functional after all, and "vestigial organs" are also fully functional organs. 7) Paleoantropology hasn't been successful either, if we look at the hoaxes of Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Piltdown, Orce Man, etc. If we look at the evidence we either have men, or apes. There is no connection. Why should I believe in evolution? I don't see any reason to do so, nor any compelling empirical evidence. How could Charles Darwin have provided answers for the most basic questions of life(as Ernst Mayr states), if he didn't come close to imagining the irreducible complexity that exists in a single cell? Remember that for the "genious" Darwin, the cell was nothing more than a kind of protoplasm that "some how" evolved!! Is this an answer to the basic questions of life? Who is being naive here?
Rating: 
Summary: Still and always a key reference
Review: This book belongs on every serious biologist's bookshelf -when it isn't on your desk, in your easy chair, in the clutches of your students, etc. Not as "easy a read" as Mayr's more "popular" books like the wonderful ONE LONG ARGUMENT, this was and is a definitive statement on key elements of the evolutionary synthesis. Get it & read it!
Rating:
Summary: Still and always a key reference
Review: This book belongs on every serious biologist's bookshelf -when it isn't on your desk, in your easy chair, in the clutches of your students, etc. Not as "easy a read" as Mayr's more "popular" books like the wonderful ONE LONG ARGUMENT, this was and is a definitive statement on key elements of the evolutionary synthesis. Get it & read it!
<< 1 >>
| 
