>I've spotted a pattern of miscommunication in the recent exchanges between
>Walter ReMine and myself.
>
>The problem lies in the fact that we have used the terms "evolution" and
>"Darwinism" in at least five different meanings:
I agree with Loren, there is a pattern of miscommunication, and yes it often
involves the definition of "evolution" and "Darwinism" (and every other
keyword of the origins debate). Loren and I disagree about where the
miscommunication eminates from. I say evolutionary theory thrives on
confusion (and miscommunication), as an essential part of the illusion
making process. For example, evolutionists don't just say "Survivors
survive" -- the tautology is too obvious. Instead, they mix in some
ambiguity (with the word "fitness"), together with a shift here and there
(as needed), and they end up with a ruse -- rather like a three-shell game
at the carnival. Charge them with tautology, and they make a quick dodge to
a special definition. Charge them with using a special definition, and they
dodge back to tautology. Round and round you go. The ruse DEPENDS on
confusion, and wouldn't last without it.
It's the same with "evolution" and "Darwinism". Evolutionists have multiple
conflicting definitions of these terms, then, depending on your particular
line of argument, they have ample ambiguity to give you the run-around. For
example:
> When I mentioned that Ev_Dar has been falsified; Walter replied that
>this does not show that evolution is testable, because Ev_MN / Ev_PN are
>untestable and unfalsifiable.
Wrong. That was not my response. Here is the illusion: Loren defined
"Darwinism" in an especially narrow way, and notes that it is falsified. I
say, So what! That doesn't show that evolutionary theory (or "Darwinism" as
practiced today) is falsifiable. My book documents additional examples of
this, where evolutionists claim that natural selection is falsifiable
because some OTHER theory (such as Lamarkian inheritance) has been
falsified. The falsification of one theory does not show the falsifiability
of another theory. One does not follow from the other, it's just another
(of countless) run-arounds.
(Note: I previously discussed how Popper fell err to an obfuscation about
Darwinism. He arbitrarily divided Darwinism into TWO theories: sexual
selection, and a "sweeping form" (ie. Darwinism minus sexual selection).
Then he chased around, discussing whether one theory 'explains' life better
than the other. The issue of testability was lost in the confusion. A
mis-definition of Darwinism played a key role in the confusion.)
>When I sketched the outlines of a test for Ev_Mod; Walter replied that
>this does not show that evolution is testable, because Ev_MN / Ev_PN are
>untestable and unfalsifiable.
Again, that misrepresents what I said. Also remember I made a challenge to
Loren, a main feature was: Design a system of life that resists
naturalistic (or evolutionary) explanations. Design a system of life that
you cannot explain away by evolution. Loren (like all evolutionists so far)
offered a garish parody of life, rather like: Organisms with a built-in
string of Christmas-tree lights that flash, "Eat at Joe's Grill", or have Pi
coded (somehow) into their genome. If THAT is the lengths evolutionists
would have to go to cast doubt on evolution, then evolution is empty of
empiric value.
>When I gave an example of an observation which would falsify Ev_Cor;
>Walter replied that "dramatic observations do not count, and besides,
>Ev_MN / Ev_PN are untestable and unfalsifiable.
That completely misrepresents me. I didn't say dramatic observations do not
count. (All observations count.) Rather, my thrust was twofold:
1) A phony "test" can be fabricated for ANY mythical explanation merely by
requiring observations that are grotesque. Such as: Astrology would be
falsified if the planets started moving in squares instead of ellipses, and
everyone's personality remained unchanged. Or, astrology would be falsified
if the planets kept on like always, but everyone's personality became the
same. There is no test there, it's just a time worn ploy.
2) Loren's "test" of evolution was the instantaneous origin of a new life
forms (perhaps simultaneously around the world). The main thrust of my
response, was that Loren's test, even it it "failed", would not refute
evolution, on the contrary it would be an astounding demonstration of
evolution and would be joyfully received by evolutionists.
>When I offered to construct a very specific test of Ev_mod using the
>latest results on the molecules I study; Walter replied that this does not
>test evolution because Ev_MN / Ev_PN are untestable and unfalsifiable.
That was not my response. Rather, I pointed out that Loren's molecular
sequence "test" had thousands of outs and excuses available should evolution
fail. His test involved many assumptions about the evolutionary process
which could be summarily abandoned (or easily replaced by other evolutionary
assumptions) should the test fail. I said his "test" offers a real
opportunity to confirm evolution, but not refute it. I also challenged
Loren to show that his test places evolution at risk. So far he has declined.
In summary, unlike Loren, and unlike his claims about me -- none of my
arguments uses (or gains illusion-making power from) a faulty definition of
"evolution" or "Darwinism". Check out the above examples.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128