Philosophy Now Forum

Dr Raymond Tallis lances a metaphysical boil.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/154/An_Encounter_with_Radical_Darwinitis

It is one of the most tested and robust of scientific theories, and technologies and discoveries since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859) – carbon dating, filling in of the fossil record, and genomics, to name but a few – have all strengthened its case.

Hey, at least they haven't buried their heads completely in the sand. I've heard multiple times over the last month people saying that the state of evidence for evolution is unchanged, or even *worse*, than it was in Darwin's day. So it's refreshing to hear this dude be at terms with at least this much.

Fitness beats Truth. Hm.
I don't see why there has to be a winner.
Truth would be useful, sometimes at least.
Running through the woods to get away or to catch something....
all those roots, holes, changes in the surface shape, low hanging branches, rocks, inclines....
Something about the model must be fairly accurate.
The insight that our view will be skewed sometimes because it's fitness that didn't need to correspond
is fine, but it doesn't have to be everything.

Tallis wrote:It is one of the most tested and robust of scientific theories, and technologies and discoveries since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859) – carbon dating, filling in of the fossil record, and genomics, to name but a few – have all strengthened its case.

According to radiometry, carbon dating cannot be used to reliably and accurately date materials which is greater than 50,000 years old. Moreover, the other radiometric methods available to date materials are too unreliable to provide accurate dating according to the scientific field itself! So, down goes all the supposed "testing" and "evidence" of evolution of Darwin. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the theory of evolution.

if Darwinitis can be cured with penicillin, would Radical Darwinitis be effectively treated with radiation?

-Imp

"... and that is the reason why we should not blah blah blah," said Maryam. Malak yawned, this was her 15th yawn, she couldn't help it, Maryam was so boring sometimes. "I believe there are a few critical words, I mean concepts, missing from your, what did you say?, analysis" said Malak in a sleepy tone. Maryam frowned, but picked up where she left off, "that's why Darwin's theory is blah, blah, blah." Emily smiled at Maryam, looked at Malak who was trying her best not to yawn and she gestured to have the car key passed to her. Malak fumbled for the keys, found them and lazily tossed them towards Emily. For a second it looked like the key would overshoot but no chance, Emily was an athlete with super reflexes. The key jingled as she caught it. "Got it!!" Emily cried out.

Tallis as usual takes a rational commonsense view in bursting the bubbles of theories gone awry. In the case of Darwin, approving of the basic theory not the nonsense it has spawned.

Gray’s view is nonsensical unless he is referring to substrate only, to what underlines beast and man, and not to capacity. No animal tends to worship a deity or wishes to expand into outer space. There is a difference between the output of a 25 watt bulb and a 100 watt bulb, although the electricity is the same in both.

Hoffman may have a point in his theory but there is no way of knowing yet. If the strong force is responsible for the organs of sense and the weak force for the objects of sense with the neutral force coalescing the two, Hoffman may be correct. Not that substance would not exist but only as a field for ideas to play on.

After all what are nightly dreams but a play of ideas on substance and they are perceived as real, that is until we wake up.