the advocate

If you are serious about being objective and uncovering religious biases, you would be forced to consider the religious beliefs many of the principle defenders of Darwinism, past and present. Not just those who oppose the theory. If for example you found a disproportionate number of atheists defending the theory, would you question their findings? Should an atheist be assumed to be any more objective than a theist? While the hobby of unmasking creationists may be a welcome escape from the harsh realities of defending a paradigm in crisis, the Darwinian theory will ultimately stand or fall based on the evidence. Not personal accusations. Paradigm shifts do not necessarily depend on the "conversion" of scientists steeped in past prejudices whether religious or antireligious. Many paradigm shifts are facilitated by young scientists or those who are new to the field. They will not waste time learning the complex aplologetic arguments used to defend theories, but will instead prefer to survey the problems and propose often radical new solutiuons, given half a chance. I apologise in advance for my reliance on Wikipedia. The entry for the phrase "smoking gun" begins with the paragraph: "The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. In addition to this, its meaning has evolved to uses completely unrelated criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favour of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called smoking gun evidence. " It seems that Milton's book, while not evidence of a crime as such, does indeed appear to be a smoking gun. It points to the hypothesis that Darwinism is a paradigm in crisis. You have unwittingly chosen a very appropriate title for this thread!

Finding an accurate description of the universe is everyone's goal. The main point is that the “truths” of science in general should come with the inverted comma's firmly attached and in cases where scientific claims are upheld dogmatically, with a public health warning. Milton claims that Darwinists are trying to have Darwinism portrayed as a FACT in schools and the theory of evolution as a FACT while denying the opportunity of others to present the theories apparent shortcomings. Do you believe that this is an acceptable behaviour? Don't you think we should come clean and be honest with the present gaps in our knowledge? Using Wiki is nothing to be ashamed of. Whether you are taking knowledge from Wiki or “other printed sources, it is still considered knowledge derived by authority. Any way, it would have been more appropriate if you had referred me to the specific link on the “problem of induction” rather than one on induction generally. Note statement 2 of the problem of induction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction The laws of physics as they appear today are subject to this problem. In addition, Darwinism, like theories about the origin of the universe have an historical element. Darwinism is a theory about how things have happened in the past. Unless we invent time travel we can never truly observe the “progress of evolution” over billions of years, or for that matter the lack of it. All we can do is infer that evolution occurred by looking at the fossil record. This is one reason why Darwinism should not be compared to any theories which attempt to explain the universe as it is today. For example, it is doubtful that any impartial palaeontologist would infer the gradual change of species over time from their observations unless they were already fully convinced of this belief through their considerable pre-training. I say this having no particular gripe against some form of evolution taking place. We had to get here somehow. However, based on the evidence I have seen so far, I am far from satisfied by the Darwinian account. But imagine that it was possible to travel back to the past and return with actual observations. Assuming the invention convenient and safe time travel we can proceed to investigate thoroughly what really happened and then propose a most convincing theory to account for our actual observations. Even with time travel, obtaining and interpreting these observations would still be an unimaginable task. Ignoring pre-biotic evolution for the present, we would have to find the first living cell(s) and follow the progress of the descendants over billions of years. But lets assume that eventually we achieve this in a way that can be convincingly demonstrated to a thinking member of the public, say, by taking him on a time travelling holiday. We take him back to a consecutive series of moments in time showing the emergence of two distinct species from a common ancestor. And imagine that the idea of gradual evolution as the norm is fully vindicated and that the fossil record was misleading us after all on this point. Now we are getting closer to raising Darwinism to a level where we are "sure" of the facts as we are "sure" of the "fact" of heliocentricity. But with all of that, I still think that a more convincing case could be put for heliocentricity than for Darwinism. In addition, all we would have so far is a set of observations which still require interpretation and explanation, in the same way that heliocentricity requires explanation in terms of a wider theory. We still can't know for sure that Darwinism is the correct or even the only mechanism driving these changes. It may turn out in the light of this knowledge that proposing such a mechanism is seen to be meaningless. Maybe its just the wrong approach to the question. Short term lab experiments showing minor mutations are in no way adequate to generalise that the diversity of life we see today can be accounted for by Darwin's theory. This appears to be no more than a speculative hypothesis based of what Darwinists already believe to be true. Can you give an example of absolutely disproving something by deduction in the context of science. I would take the foundations of these theories on trust (provisionally true) assuming that after some preliminary investigation I found them suitably convincing, while remembering from the lessons of history that they will ultimately be subject to radical revision so as to make them unrecognisable. This is the spirit of falsificationism. Assuming they suitably impressed me with their array of problems and solutions I would be happy to use them in the practice of 'normal science' at the moment. I would be inclined to “buy into these paradigms” subject to some initial consideration. I'm not so sure about Darwinism, however. I have already spent a number of weeks looking into Darwinism and am not impressed by the vague and unsatisfactory nature of its explanations and the length of time that some of its major anomalies have gone unresolved. I believe that there are indications that Darwinism has hit a brick wall in some areas and is unlikely to shed any more light on them. While the question of when a research programme has degenerated hopelessly appears to be subjective, I would probably be jumping ship at this stage if there was an alternative. Failing that, I would probably prefer to research into the anomalies in order to encourage the emergence of a new “paradigm” or “research programme” which indicates the potential to deal with these anomalies more effectively. But can you appreciate the difference between these theories (special Relativity or the orbital model) and one which points people to the metaphysical conclusion that pre-biotic evolution can certainly be accounted for by chemistry and statistics and that the reason for the current diversity of life is due to natural selection working on purely random mutations. Can you see why such a claim deserves a little more scrutiny than heliocentricity say. Milton believes that if science is to propose something equivalent to a religious creation story, then it should fully expect and indeed welcome the utmost scrutiny from people within science and from taxpayers who fund much of this research. I realise now that I have accepted Darwinism uncritically. Looking back I can see some of the reasons why this occurred. One of these is the misleading presentation of Darwinism in text books. It is common to see Darwinism presented in basic texts as an uncontroversial theory with only a few details to sort out. Kuhn states that: “Given the slightest reasons for doing so, the man who reads a science text can easily take the application to be the evidence for the theory, the reason why it aught to be believed. But science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of the evidence. What alternatives have they or what competence? The applications given in texts are not there as evidence but because learning them is part of learning the paradigm at the base of current practice. (p. 80)” (emphasis mine) By the time I new enough to question Darwinism, I had already accepted much of its ruling paradigm. Another reason for my ignorance of the present state of Darwinism was simply my interest in other areas of science. I assumed that Evolutionary theorists had at least the major elements of Darwinism well sorted. No one has time to question every detail of a theory which is outside their chosen discipline. But more recently I have come to believe that this has been due to the way that Darwinists have tended to deliberately paper over the cracks in order to avoid exposing problems to the public at large. This is facilitated by the peer review system. My personal suspicions are being aroused by the evasive lines of arguments used when I ask the more pertinent questions. This attitude appears to be propagated from the top down. Rather than confess ignorance, the tendency is to become defensive and accuse me of having alternative motives, exactly as Milton predicted. Lakatos would never have sanctioned the stifling of debate in this way. In his words: “One may rationally stick to a degenerating programme until it is overtaken by a rival and even after. What one may not do is deny its poor public record..... It is perfectly rational to play a risky game: what is irrational is to deceive oneself about the risk.” (p. 117) When I first read Milton's book I was inclined to assume that it may contain much faulty science and I still have a lot to check. Recently however I read “reinventing Darwin” by Niles Eldredge himself a committed Darwinist. The things he was saying about the palaeontological evidence for Darwinism were even more damming than Milton! Although being on the side of Darwinism as it were, he just couldn't 'see' how damaging palaeontologies trade secret would be to the credibility of the Darwinian programme. Thanks to Gould and Eldredge, the next generation of palaeontologists are likely to enter the field with an more open mind and a mystery to solve. Gould and Eldredge were treated like apostates for their beliefs. Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to find this text. Milton claims that Darwinism will need to come up with answers soon or become a candidate for paradigm shift itself. He does not propose a specific replacement claiming that it is unreasonable to expect this of him. But while scientists may be bound to cling to the remnants of a paradigm in crisis (or a degenerating research program) until a rival appears, as Milton points out, the general public are not. Milton states that: “I think those who believe in a creator, and those who believe in Darwinism, do so as an act of faith or belief, because they find it intellectually or emotionally repugnant to acknowledge and live with such open minded ignorance.” (p. 295) Milton claims that he is personally agnostic and that he can live with this, but that many Darwinists take the theory as a substitute to traditional religion in spite of the evidence. He believes that this is explained by a psychological trait identified by Leon Festinger known as “cognitive dissonance”. From Wikipedia: “In popular usage, it can be associated with the tendency for people to resist information that they don't want to think about, because if they did it would create cognitive dissonance, and perhaps require them to act in ways that depart from their comfortable habits. They usually have at least partial awareness of the information, without having moved to full acceptance of it, and are thus in a state of denial about it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance You seem to be unable to discuss Milton's view without implying that he is a closet creationist. If I ask for your for this, please avoid answering with a circular argument such as: Milton necessarily has to be a creationist because he points out scientific problems with the Darwinism! If you have serious evidence then please state it. More seriously, his personal agenda is irrelevant to the question at hand. All that matters is whether or not the criticisms he makes are valid. Maybe he does have a real big axe to grind with Darwin's theory for one reason or another. But this is all entirely irrelevant to criticisms of a scientific nature. Falsificationism is silent on the personal agenda of the critic. All that matters is the scientific content of the criticism and whether or not the theory stands up to it. In the same way, a theory may be inspired in a scientist after years of experimental toil or guessed by a genius with the aid of some unorthodox metaphysical commitments or even luck. Is it scientific to reject a promising hypothesis purely on the basis of the persons metaphysical beliefs? Surely not. All that matters is whether or not the theory stands up to scrutiny. Does this mean conversely that we should assume that all Darwinists are atheists. Since Darwinism is “provisionally true” does this lend support to atheism? Or should we take atheism to be a refuted theory and ignore the views of Darwinists who profess atheism. Should we accuse theistic Darwinists of being closet atheists? Where do you stop when you start along this downward slope. You are falling into his Milton's predicted pattern by attacking the person rather than concentrating on the science at hand. Such strategies may buy time but will never make a genuine problem go away. Newtonian physics is as useful as it ever was several decades after its replacement as paradigm. This is because in most investigations, the accuracy provided by Newton's physics is still more than adequate and the mathematics is much easier. It's really that simple. At the same time, you seem assured that Darwinism has explained (or at least explained away) most of its anomalies, but that is exactly what I am here to question. You assume the fact under debate in order to win your argument! You made a bold claim that an increasing rate of production of papers on evolution implies that Darwinism is not a paradigm in decline. You use a strange “Popperian logic” to prove this. I recast your argument in terms of simpler deductive logic to expose it as fallacious. You cannot say that an increase in the number of published papers (over time) concerning evolution necessarily proves that Darwinism is not a declining paradigm. There are clearly several other variables which would have to be isolated in order to justify this claim. I refer you to my earlier posts on this. You also said: It appears that you have found the precise indicator of when the strength of a paradigm or research programme peaks and begins to decline that Popper, Khun and Lakatos searched for in vain! Popper said crucial experiments. Khun and Lakatos were not exactly sure how to pinpoint when a paradigm began to decline. You say, a zero rate of change of published papers with evolution in the title. Does this mean that you will be willing to give up Darwinism when the search for the term evolution begins to show fewer results? You have uncritically accepted the presence of “any and all” articles under the vague heading of evolution to 'prove' that Darwinism is not a declining paradigm. Have you really read and scrutinized all (or indeed any) of those articles personally. This is a blatant attempt to argue from authority. While scrutinizing these papers you should have taken the time to distinguish between genuine tests of Darwinism as opposed to mere repetitions of the same test. How do you even know that some or indeed any of those articles have not contradicted Darwinism. You also assume that just because the article has “evolution” in the title that it is evidence of a supportive or confirming article. Do you simply trust that the peer review system would automatically filter out any “rogue evidence”? You also stated that: “PubMed has over 150,000 articles just since 1965 that involve tests of evolution! We are at the stage of testing evolution the way we test heliocentrism” and “Not protective. Just that the tests HAVE BEEN DONE! Pay attention. If you can think of tests, put them out there. But there are a lot of evolutionary biologists who have been working -- by Popperian science -- since 1859 testing evolution. PubMed has over 150,000 articles just since 1965 that involve tests of evolution!” Genuine tests involve exposing the theory to some risk. If I am to assume that Darwinism is running out of tests to falsify it as you claim then you would expect only a tiny amount of genuine corroborating instances to appear in articles. In this case, the paradigm has reached its useful limit. The research programme has become “tired” and it is time to turn to the negative heuristic. Popper states that: “Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her. And we must hazard them to win our prize.” Are you really a Popperian? Do these ad hoc hypotheses work? We can test them independently. Pouring $$ isn't going to make the anomalies disappear. Lakatos states that: “It is very difficult to decide, especially if one does not demand progress at each single step, when a research programme has degenerated hopelessly........With sufficient brilliance and some luck, any theory, even if it is false, can be defended 'progressively' for a long time. But when should a particular theory , or a whole research programme, be rejected? I claim, only if there is a better one to replace it.” (P 149,150 – The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (emphasis mine) You are right, but it could allow anomalies to be managed ad concealed using for a “long time”. In addition to brilliance and luck, I would add $$. If you knew anything about the way physics works first hand, you would know that that Newtonian physics (and classical paradigm in general) is as useful today as it ever was. I personally used purely classical techniques in order to investigate the chaotic nature of non-linear coupling of high powered laser beams in an optical fibre for my final year thesis. The mathematics used while beautiful was truly ancient and very much part of the “rejected” Newtonian paradigm. Relativity or QM were quite irrelevant to this investigation although the chaotic coupling phenomena itself was very new. You should be more cautious when you make sweeping generalisations about someone else's speciality. Does it not make you wonder how much you really know about the security of other branches of science outside your own speciality which purport to corroborate Darwinism. Like palaeontology. What claim do you stand by? “That we are running out of tests” or that “there simply aren't more tests to pass.” You seem to be trying to say that Darwinism is unfalsifyable without saying that is unfalsifyable! You are in danger of loosing sight of Poppers view entirely. As Popper states: “the wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and reckless critical quest for the truth.” You have yet to quote any serious potential falsifying instances, not because problems do not exist, but because you appear to belong to a paradigm that seeks to deny the possibility of a falsifying instance in the manner of pseudo-sciences. In doing so, you appear to have crossed Poppers demarcation line from science to pseudo-science. While it is generally accepted that Lakatos sided with Popper against Kuhn in claiming that there were rational rules for scientific progress, you will know that there are a number of instances where Lakatos does side with Khun over Popper if you have read the Methodology of scientific research programs. This is what I claimed. Indeed, Lakatos fails to demonstrate the very point he set out to prove; that scientists are behaving rationally at the time when they switch research programmes. It is only with hindsight that he claims a rational pattern can be discerned. But while Lakatos and Khun need to be used with caution, they do however provide interesting insights into the methodologies scientists use to deal with anomalies. I didn't say that I won't read a text book on evolutionary biology. You said that. Please show me where I did if you are truthful. I am currently reading “Reinventing Darwin” by Niles Eldredge. Furthermore, have you read any literature which is critical of Darwinism from cover to cover or do you write them off after the first few pages as creationist literature? The irony of all this is that it is you who refuses to read Miltons book, a book critical of Darwinism. You openly admitted this. I have recently become aware of an increasing number of books by scientists who are very critical of Darwinism. I intend to read both sides and will bear in mind your suggestion. Please avoid making such false claims about me in future as correcting them wastes time. At the same time, I would be grateful if you could tell me any of the books you have read which are critical of Darwinism. Thank you for pointing out my lapse and reminding me of the fact that even today something as apparently obvious as heliocentricity is still extremely hard to demonstrate convincingly. Where does that leave Darwinism. I clarify my original position; that heliocentricity is a theory that I would currently be prepared to accept as provisionally true. Darwinism is however not presently one that I would be prepared to accept as provisionally true. Efforts to provide demonstrable proof of Darwinian evolution are currently light years behind those which purport to provide demonstrable proof of heliocentricity. A very good reason to accept heliocentricity as provisionally true is that nowadays, technology has advanced so far that it is possible to give convincing demonstrations of heliocentricity, to a thinking member of the public. In addition, the information we have gathered since the theory was first postulated has lead to increasingly spectacular corroborations. While it is possible by rearranging our theory to put the earth back at the centre of the universe, I don't think the idea will catch on given our present state of knowledge. It is also worth noting, that no one questions or writes books questioning heliocentricity any more, as far as I know. On my scale, I would give heliocentricity a 1 (accepted as provisionally true). For now. Darwinism would get a 0 (not accepted as provisionally true) The only justification for accepting the Darwinian paradigm as provisionally true at present is in order to explore the major anomalies which should be public knowledge. I could not accept it as true uncritically true as you appear to have done. Going by the answers I have had so far, I predict a growing number of scientists who investigate Darwinism will focus on the anomalies. I also predict a growth in the number of rival candidates and the reappearance of some of the earlier vanquished rivals. Some of the anomalies are not minor or peripheral as is often claimed but affect the heart and sole of Darwinism. If, for example, countless examples of gradual evolution had been uncovered from the fossil record, many of Darwin's critics would have been silenced by now and museums would be bursting with the evidence of gradual evolutionary change – not “stasis”. People would infer that the suggested Darwinian mechanism was indeed a plausible candidate to explain the emergence of complex life forms in the sense that it is supported by evidence. But things didn't turn out the way that Darwin anticipated. Instead we see new species appearing abruptly and remaining stable for millions of years with only minor variations – the exact opposite. This being the case, it may still be possible to get around the failure of palaeontologists to find the fossil pattern predicted by Darwin by adjusting the theory to fit in with what is actually found as was the case with punctuated equilibria. I am however inclined to believe that Darwin's instinct was right in the respect that his theory will fall on account of this failure. At the moment, you have to take a leap of faith in the face of the evidence before you can accept the gradual Darwinian mechanism. If the pattern he had predicted had been found convincingly, then the debate would have moved on from here. I think I know what you are getting at. I believe that the present defence of Darwinism is not based on Popper at all. But instead is based on stretching the Lakatosian idea of Popper2 to the limit while ignoring his cautions. Darwinism is no longer a fledgling theory that needs to be sheltered from anomalies but the kind of theory which deserves and should indeed welcome serious scrutiny. It is sad, if what you say is true, that creationist seem to be the ones most interested in furthering science by pointing out anomalies while Darwinists seem intent on defending the theory at great cost to the ideal of scientific objectivity. Surely this is one of the dangers of relying to heavily on the Lakatosian methodology. 1 is uncontroversial according to Milton if you mean by this “sub specific variation”. 2 while at the moment this does appear to be possible and widely accepted, the jury is still out according to Milton. 3 this is highly controversial. 4 how does 2 differ from 4? 5 evolution as a consequence of natural selection acting on random mutations is rejected by Milton along with Darwins theory of sexual selection. What about the hundreds of auxiliary hypotheses? I would like help in identifying the positive and negative heuristic and some of the auxiliary hypotheses of Darwinism. You are silent on this important issue. I stated in an earlier post that: “If the 'fact' of evolution can be Demonstrated convincingly in the way that heliocentricity can, then I don't have a problem with that. I do however have a big problem making evolution synonymous with Darwinian evolution. Demonstrating the 'fact' of evolution in no way proves the validity of the Darwinian theory of evolution any more than Demonstrating the fact of heliocentricity proves Newtons theory of Gravitation. Milton complains that: “Wherever there is any evidence relating to evolution as a principle, Darwinists claim that evidence for their theory of mutation and natural selection.”” Making evolution and Darwinism synonymous is a methodological decision, not a self evident fact. If Darwinian evolution is the only conceivable means of evolution, and the Darwinian mechanism is later shown to be untenable for one reason or another, then you are forced to concede that evolution didn't happen at all! We just appeared, by magic. If, however, you separate evolution the 'fact' from the Darwinian mechanism, then the idea of evolution of some sort may survive, albeit perhaps without a mechanism. The actual historical pattern of this evolution would need to be determined primarily from the fossil record. I think you are trying to say, if evolution has such a thing as a mechanism, then Darwinism is the only conceivable candidate. To reject the Darwinian mechanism is to reject the belief that evolution can submit to a scientific explanation. I agree entirely. Relativity and QM should be and are taught as a theories. To my knowledge, no one is pressurising schools to teach them as facts. My physics teacher was open about the conflict between relativity and QM. I left secondary school with the notion that Einstein never fully accepted the idea that nature at the quantum level is inherently probabilistic. I later found out that the two theories are based on entirely different and irreconcilable mathematical frameworks. My chemistry teacher would often speak of how we teach chemistry by a process of decreasing deception. He made no bones about the limitations of the Bohr model and discussed the problems often. This was not the case in biology with evolution. No dispute was mentioned although things may have improved since then. The point is, why should we not be open and honest about the theories limitations. Will it not encourage children to be more open minded and interested in science. Why should children wish to follow a career in the study of a “closed question” with all but the finer details to iron out. Niles Eldredge states that: “The “Just So Story” evolved as a statement of principle - of rote application of the black box of natural selection in order to explain the origin of a particular function, structure, or item of behaviour. The stories were probably on the money more often than not. But there is no way of knowing for sure, and the entire exercise of adaptive story telling began to strike many evolutionary biologists as inherently dissatisfying.” (P 41. Reinventing Darwin) – emphasis mine I think that Niles Eldredege makes the point better than Milton. These proofs are all works of imagination which for years have been peddled as science. Are these hard targets the best on offer after the collection of hundreds of thousands of fossil remains over 150 years. I intend to investigate this claim. Does Darwin's theory of sexual selection have any similar hard targets. The peacocks tail for example. How hard is that? Until fairly recently, this type of explanation was considered scientific! To list your arguments All arguments advanced by Milton are by definition (refuted) ID/creationist arguments although you don't know what they are yet because you refuse to read his book. Someone who questions any part of the Darwinist doctrine is by definition a creationist and hence excluded from forwarding any scientific criticism. You have immunised Darwinism from any criticism while claiming to be a Popperian. Someone who criticises Darwin on scientific grounds is defined as a closet creationist. Therefore, all critics of Darwinism are either open ID/creationists or closet ID/creationists. (I wonder if an open atheist who criticises Darwinism be considered a closet creationist by this “logic”? That's a tough one.) Any scientist who considers counter evidence to Darwinism is defined as uncritical and merely claiming scientific expertise. That would have to include a growing number of prominent scientists nowadays, according to Milton. Any argument advanced by creationists irrespective of the scientific content and merit is pre-judged as falsified. This method of argumentation is in sharp contrast to the image you like to present a Popperian and a scientist. You need to remain consistent. Either you are a Popperian or a “scientific fundamentalist” Any non scientists and indeed many scientists will be appalled by these patronising assumptions. You use these ad hominem arguments after preaching to poor Lockheed in the forum of how bad this is. You have accused me personally of refusing to read Darwinist literature and being a creationist, without justification. You speak and act as if you have personally understood, verified and ticked off every piece of evidence advanced in support of Darwinism. This is intellectual arrogance. In doing so you behave in exactly the way Milton predicted. Do you realise that you are talking to any member of the public with legitimate concerns about Darwinism - possibly even the ones who pay your wages. You advance these are arguments ad nauseam in the hope that they will fool gullible people and in order to distract attention from the problems with Darwinism which I am trying to discuss and iron out. I am trying to further this discussion on scientific and logical grounds but you are making things extremely difficult. By falling into a pattern of behaviour predicted by Milton, you corroborate part of his thesis! You are right. Milton's book is aimed at a thinking member of the public. He presents himself as a thinking member of the public in search of answers. The point is, the questions he pose come from within the scientific community itself. This situation has arose because the ruling paradigm as sustained in part by the peer review system is failing to acknowledge problems. I'm not talking about minor details but problems so obvious that anyone can spot them. But the Darwinist establishment is refusing to allow the kind of truly open debate that could lead to a rival programme emerging swiftly. There may well be other better or more scientific material addressing the same issues. I intend to look into this while acquainting myself with the present schools of Darwinian thought. Where did I say that I have accepted Milton's thesis at all, never mind uncritically. I said I was arguing his thesisMilton does not try to pretend that the scientific criticism he advances are uncontroversial and some may be out of date. If however even a portion of them were true, the effects could be far reaching to say the least. If I had accepted Miltons thesis uncritically, I wouldn't be on this thread looking to see possible counter arguments. What will be achieved by criticising a straw man of Milton's argument other than everyone going home feeling better? Don't take this personally but no – I won't accept your word for it although I am happy to consider your arguments before making up my mind. This was precisely what was happening when I joined the thread. Not a single person had read Milton's book yet they felt sufficiently well informed to make all sorts of assumptions about it and about Milton's beliefs and character. That was precisely my earlier point. Refuting a straw man does not refute anything and the arguments do not go away but instead gain currency. This very thread is called: Help on flaws in "Shattering the Myth of Darwinism"? Now you want to start a new one to discuss the same subject! What is the point of that? Would it not make more sense to start a thread on "the concept of truth in science", say. I agree entirely that scientists need to accept many assumptions in order to get things done. Truth as used in philosophy and “truth” as used in physics are entirely different concepts. One is a unreachable, the other purely pragmatic. When you say “absolutely”, do you mean the philosophers absolutely or a less rigorous physicists absolutely. Can you expand this idea. How would you define “the simplest observable truth” in a way that is universally acceptable. This would be a minimum criteria if you mean “absolute proof” even in the scientists sense. The problem here is that the most well developed theories in physics (for example) are mathematical. There are currently not one but instead a number of foundational schools of mathematics. Which is correct if any?

I did not intend to accuse you of moving the goal posts. I was just trying to say that they are very wide and conveniently happened to be in the right place. The characteristics of protocells fortunately fell within the scope of a very limited definition of life on a free on-line dictionary. I'm sure the definition was never intended to be used in this way. It was intended for people who knew what real life is. This would be consistent with Milton's claim that Darwinist will accept any and all evidence provided it lends support to their theory of mutation and natural selection. I agree with you about the God of gaps and have already stated this. I don't want to fill the “gaps” with God. I would like to present the case made by Richard Milton that while there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, the case has still has to be made and that there is no evidence for Darwinism. In doing so, I intend to put his case in order to see if his thesis stands up. As Milton puts it. “ I intend taking the theory out of the glass cabinet in which it is so reverently kept and looking at it a little less reverently and a little more closely.” He means the victorian glass cabinet in the British Museum of Natural History. If you intend to comment on theological issues you need to start with the right concept of God and the Creation. If the entirely speculative and completely unverifiable Ekpyrotic Model ever got of the ground, it would have no bearing whatsoever on this question. We talk of models nowadays, not truths. An Eternal and Absolute Creator is utterly separate from the universe. None of our speculations theories have any bearing whatsoever on His existence. You have allowed theism back into the argument by the back door. What if the Ekpyrotic Model is false? Does the opposite apply? Is the case for theism made? Could another theory potentially wipe out aetheism or bring theism to the whole of humanity? Einstein tried to speak for God. The “problem of induction” means that we have no way of knowing for sure whether laws which hold at present have always held and will always hold. The scientific method is based on inductive logic. While it is perfectly possible to argue consistently that God alters the Creation when we are 'not looking' in unusual ways, this view is entirely unnecessary, unverifiable, and often used as a fall back position. I agree with you entirely we need to trust our intellect and senses as far as possible while realising our limitations. I believe we should go wherever the evidence takes us while recognising that the rug can be pulled from under our feet at any time. But this problem has to be taken seriously by science. In the early stages of the universe, at extremes well beyond observation, laws may well have been very different from how they are today. Remember also that science can only seek to explain phenomena which are fairly regular. If extraordinary 'one off's' occur and I am not suggesting that they do, then they would be outside the scope of science. But there is no way we can prove them or rule them out scientifically since we cannot observe them. It also has to be taken very seriously by Darwinists when making pronouncements with apparent confidence about things which supposedly happened billions of years ago. I didn't say at Public Schools. Its much worse than that. I was meaning the 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to the whole of the UK. These lectures are aimed predominately at school children and are broadcast to the UK on prime time BBC television around teatime. The are a Christmas institution. I had a vague recollection of Dawkins behaviour during the Christmas Lectures because it was quite notorious at the time. If Richard Dawkins is willing to use this prestigious honour as a vehicle to spread his Atheist views in the name of science to a young impressionable audience then anything goes. Anyway, you can find tons of examples of his rants on the web. Is is your way of saying it's not our problem. Richard Dawkins has been the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford since 1995. Can you see the irony in this. Please don't tell me that its fair to expect the general public to be uninfluenced by claims made by someone in his prestigious position. Besides, Dawkins must personally think that he can influence people to believe him; that science proves atheism; due to his “scientific arguments” or why else would he bother. He knows he is abusing his position. But from now on I would prefer to avoid a discussion on Dawkins personal views and personality. I'm only interested in his science. Milton, while highly critical of Dawkins science, rests none of his case on ad-hominem arguments and claims to personally detest them. Milton claims to have been accused of many things by Darwinists and to have had many beliefs ascribed to him which he does not share. He often complains of this 'tactic' being used against him in order to avoid discussing his scientific arguments. Could part of the reason for this be that the core principle of natural selection cannot be studied in any experimental way. Milton claims that the celebrated principle of natural selection, formerly known as survival of the fittest, is in fact a tautology i.e. a statement of an inevitable (although previously unrecognised) relation. It turns out that Darwinists are unable to specify any characteristic which would render an animal 'fit' or 'fittest' in advance. The old ideas of the fastest, strongest, most cunning, sexiest etc do not in any way predict the survival of an individual in a given experiment. It turn out that there is no accepted definition of 'fit' or 'fittest' other than the capacity of an organism to survive. Milton quotes George Simpson: “To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks or anything but effectiveness in breeding.” so the fittest are now defined as those who survive and survival of the fittest = survival of ( those who survive ) As Milton puts it: “How do we measure the fitness of an animal? By its capacity to survive, say Darwinists. So the fit survive and those who survive are the fittest. Put this way, does natural selection mean anything at all?” He claims that : “Darwinists are now reluctant to try and explain any particular characteristic as being responsible for the giraffes evolution – even regarding its long neck – because they would have to show how and why that characteristic has favoured the Giraffe over other animals, some of which are extinct. All that they dare say with impunity is that the Giraffe has survived because it has adapted to its environment – the modern way of expressing the old tautology.” Is provisionally true a more upbeat way of saying unfalsified? That's what I would have thought, until I read “The Facts of Life”and that's why I'm here, to see if I should accept the theory as “provisionally true” . What do you mean 'by this time'? I have yet to cover the majority of serious criticisms made by Milton against Darwinism. You seem to be saying look its obvious to me, just take my word for it. Well I,m sorry but for a physicist approaching the Darwinian paradigm from the outside as it were, the only thing that's obvious is that you are asking me to accept a vast body of information uncritically and un challenged. This is particularly hard when Milton is claiming that nearly all the evidence which originally Gave support to Darwinism has been dropped by supporters of the theory itself. Don't get me wrong, if you were paying me to work in a biology lab to study evolution, I could “provisionally” accept Darwinism in order to practice science within the community. You can't afford to reinvent the wheel from scratch so you take on board a vast body of existing research and build on it, wrong or wrong. If you question the foundations all the time, you would never move forward. In addition, failure to ascribe to the Darwinian model of evolution would likely exclude me from any notable position in evolutionary research, whatever my talent; in much the same way that failure to believe in God would exclude me from an important religious position, say. What about Darwins original prediction of the eventual recovery of many examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Either it is you who is not paying attention or you are unable to 'see' problems which appear very serious to an outsider due to your commitment to the 'paradigm' or 'research program' or for other reasons. Now you pay attention: “for one thing, Darwin mused, paleontology in his day was still in its infancy. Surely he wrote, paleontology would eventually provide full corroboration of his theory. “Darwin actually believed that his entire theory of “transmutation” (or descent with modification -he never called it “evolution” in the Origin) would stand or fall on the eventual recovery of many examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record.” - Niles Eldredge (emphasis mine) Einsteins theory as an example of a theory in physics just doesn't have the infinite flexibility that Darwinism seems to have built in. Can you tell me any of Einstein's original predictions which have turned out to be completely wrong (or even slightly wrong). If any had been found, people would be looking for another theory right away. But wait a minute, they already are because Relativity is inconsistent with QM. QM and relativity challenge each other which is good for science. There is no such counterweight in biology. Instead, the monopoly that Darwinisms current has over the question of our origins is defended vigorously from within. The majority of the biological establishment insist on propagating the idea of Darwinian evolution as the truth and the only possible explanation because it is the only reasonable explanation they can come up with and perhaps other motives. Milton states: “Most scientists and teachers in the Earth sciences and life sciences still feel that some form of Darwinian evolution is the only reasonable hypothesis. And they hold this perfectly natural and understandable belief not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence.” (P. 203) The problem of the failure to find transitional forms has bedevilled Darwinism since it was first proposed and until recently was all but swept under the carpet. For over 100 years, the question of the complete absence of transitional species was justified on the basis that the probability of an intact fossil surviving must be vanishingly small. Milton claims that this is despite hundreds of well funded archaeological expeditions. Milton states that : “Steven J Gould and Niles Eldrige of Harvard have proposed a theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', in order to account for the lack of fossil remains of transitional species. They have suggested that evolution is not a constantly occurring phenomenon; that species may have remained stable for long periods of geological history leaving many fossil remains, and that the periods of evolutionary change, when they came, did not last very long. This would account for the lack of transitional fossils.” (emphasis mine) While acknowledging the HEROIC efforts of Gould and Eldridge to at least address this problem in the face of vitriolic attacks he notes: “The difficulty with punctuated equilibria is that it is wholly speculative and has been introduced simply to account for the lack of fossils that ought to exist in the neo-Darwinist theory.” Look at it from an outsiders perspective. The principle of natural selection is hauled into service to account for two diametrically opposed interpretations of the fossil record. This would appear to be another of Miltons examples of the infinite elasticity of Darwinism to account for any and all findings while avoiding contacts with the facts. It seems that you could call Darwinism a good theory in by the way it sidesteps falsifying incidences. What I am very interested in is to see these core statements and auxiliary hypotheses made explicit. If I am to sign up to something, I want to know what it is. I am asking you to help me with this. It is very clear to myself as an outsider that accepting Darwinism is no longer about accepting an elegant and simple theory backed up conclusively by evidence. Instead I am being asked to accept core hypotheses which cannot be proven along with hundreds of auxiliary hypotheses. No, I'm saying it's sometimes more difficult for an insider to appraise a research programme which they are committed to. Research programme deliberately direct inquiry to the positive heuristic and away from the negative heuristic. As Darwinism did successfully for oven a century with the missing transitional forms. In the same way it is difficult for you to look out, it is difficult for me to look in with the same conviction. Milton would probably certainly agree that the methodology of Lakatos is the one which has consciously been accepted by Darwinism: “It is very difficult to decide, especially if one does not demand progress at each single step, when a research programme has degenerated hopelessly; or when one of two rival programs has achieved a decisive advantage over the other. There can be no 'instant rationality'. Neither the logicians proof of inconsistency nor the experimental scientist's verdict of anomaly can defeat a research programme at one blow. One can be wise only after the event. Nature may shout NO, but human ingenuity – contrary to weyl and Popper – may always be able to shout louder. With sufficient brilliance and some luck, any theory, even if it is false, can be defended 'progressively' for a long time. But when should a particular theory , or a whole research programme, be rejected? I claim, only if there is a better one to replace it.” (P 150 – The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Is it any wonder that Darwinists have taken Lakatos to their bosom. There is hardly a hairs breath between this view and Miltons. When Darwinism is falsified is now a matter of the collective opinion of practicing evolutionists community and reqires an alternative to be put in place first. In this context, “remain” and “be” mean the same thing. You are splitting hairs. No, we can't. Since this is about Milton's book, I have tested Milton's statements and falsified them. You can't pretend it didn't happen and come back later. If I wanted to avoid controversy, I wouldn't be on this forum. Your attempt to misrepresent Khuns position and to write of his achievements, suggests that you are uneasy with the implications of his thesis. What evidence do you have to say that Khun rejected his own ideas. Can you give me a reference from The Structure? Please don't say you only meant someof his ideas. This is a Misrepresentation of my position. Milton did claim that Darwinism was a declining paradigm. You implied that if this were so, fewer and fewer papers would be published as people switch to a NEW paradigm. You then tried to use “Popperian logic” to “falsify” Miltons claim, by stating that as more papers have been published on Darwinian evolution recently, the Darwinian paradigm is not declining. I exposed some patently obvious fallacies in this argument, i.e. by showing that 1.There are many other reasons or variables which could account for the same observation, such as the rapid increase in money being poured into the biological sciences. 2.The same increase in published papers could even be seen in a paradigm which was superceded nearly a century ago, let alone in decline which is all that Milton was claiming. This argument that an increase in published papers necessarily implies a successful paradigm (or a progressive research program) is patently fallacious and I am surprised that you are continuing with it. This entire class of arguments involving computer simulations apparently demonstrating natural selection is discussed in some detail by Milton. (P. 209). He takes the example of wing design at Boeing from Andrew Scott's vital principles under the heading 'The Creativity of Evolution' and the process itself is called 'computer generated evolution' as though it were analogous to mutation and natural selection. First the engineers created a wing design that they were able to randomly mutate. Then they fed in the rules to allow the computer to simulate testing in a wind tunnel. In this way the engineers managed to achieve wing designs exhibiting maximum thrust and minimum drag and turbulence. On the face of it, the system would appear to be working in a Darwinian manner. Milton states: The fallacies on which this case is constructed are not very profound but they do need to be nailed down. The most important fallacy in this argument is the idea that somehow a result has occurred which is independent of, or in some way beyond the engineers, who merely set the machine going by pressing a button. Of course, the fact is that a human agency has designed and built the computer and programmed it to perform the task in question. This begs the only important question in evolution theory: could complex structures have arisen spontaneously by random natural processes without any precursor? Like all other computer simulation experiments, this one actually makes a case for special creation because it specifically requires a Creator to build the computer and think up and implement the programme in the first place. Etc. And no. Milton is being ironic, he's not arguing Creationism vs Darwinism. I have already discussed one of these VERY bold predictions i.e. The predicted discovery of many transitional forms in the fossil record. Can you elaborate on some of Darwins other predictions which were more successful. For future clarity, I would be grateful if you could make your position on Darwinism as a Popperian explicit as I would like to move the discussion forward. Do you believe that Darwinism is: 1 Falsified 2 Falsifiable 3 Currently Unfalsifiable 4 Permanently Unfalsifiable 5 Other Consequently, do you believe that in future Darwinism will: 1 eventually be falsified and replaced by a better theory. 2 never be falsified 3 Other I agree that Popper has not had the last word on how science is done. But while Popper established the idea of the tentative nature of theories, his ideas on how science is usually done were wide of the mark. Lakatos clearly sided with Khun in this respect. No, I only read the book recently. Before that all I knew about evolution was gathered from school biology. Thanks to powerful telescopes, satellites, spacecraft etc, Heliocentricity is something which can be convincingly demonstrated to any thinking member of the public. Now you are using a straw man of my argument. The fact that the sun is at the centre of our solar system is no longer a theory at all but requires explanation in the context of a wider theory. If the 'fact' of evolution can be Demonstrated convincingly in the way that heliocentricity can, then I don't have a problem with that. I do however have a big problem making evolution synonymous with Darwinian evolution. Demonstrating the 'fact' of evolution in no way proves the validity of the Darwinian theory of evolution any more than Demonstrating the fact of heliocentricity proves Newtons theory of Gravitation. Milton complains that: “Wherever there is any evidence relating to evolution as a principle, Darwinists claim that evidence for their theory of mutation and natural selection.” I don't believe that theories in physics are truths. I prefer the term models. Even if a TOE is found, uniting QM and relativity etc., there is no way of knowing if it is the correct model, given our minute experience of the universe in space and time. Indeed, there is no way of knowing that it is the only model. Currently, no one in physics has a monopoly and consequently none is trying to portray physics theories as truths. Monopolies lead to arrogance and complacency and to sloppy arguments which go unchallenged. No one is trying to pressurise schools to teach quantum mechanics or relativity as a fact rather than a theory. Like Milton, I personally have no objections religious or otherwise, to some kind of evolution taking place, but I intend to see the evidence myself before forming any opinion. In my experience, the vast majority of people are happy to follow the crowd, but prefer to remain open minded. I chose the example of the Giraffe simply because it is the best known of a number of examples that Milton gave. Every one knows the Darwinian account of how the Giraffe got its long neck. Milton is not choosing an easy target as you imply. He is directing his criticism at the entire class of arguments. Arguments which profess to explain using the principle of natural selection; how and why a particular adaption came about. He claims that none of them can be verified and that they should not form part of the body of evidence that supports Darwinism. He claims that this is not just his position but the position taken by the Majority of Darwinists nowadays, yet they continue to be taught in schools as facts supporting Darwinism. Do you agree with Milton, that these arguments are discredited and should no longer be used in support of Darwinism. This as an attempt to clear away dead wood. If I have been taught Darwinism at school using discredited arguments, I want to know about it. NO. Just now I want to see if clear cut evidence can be produced which conclusively supports some historical adaption, any adaption; such as the Giraffes neck, the fiddler crabs big claw, etc. I want to know whether or not you consider these stories scientific and verifiable or not. I dont want speculation. Are they currently part of the Darwinian explanatory repertoire or have they been dropped as Milton claims? Should they form part of the body of scientific evidence supporting Darwinism? (from previous post) So, the adaption stories are more useful at refuting ID/creationism than for Darwinism. Can I take it from that that they are unscientific. Why are you Bringing creationism into the discussion? Milton does not speak on behalf of ID/Creationism but intends to confront Darwinism with criticism from within the scientific community. It is inevitable that some of these arguments will be similar to ID/creationists arguments. Milton is not trying to get Darwinists to convert to ID/creationism but to take a step back and consider alternative scientific approaches.

You would not be appraising these statements, you would be appraising the entire theory which purports to explain the statement we observe. Newtons, Einstein etc I agree with Popper that it is an impossible and meaningless task trying to assign "probable truth" to a theory. It may in future be possible to assign some kind of figure to indicate how good a theory is in order to compare it with other theories but it will not be considered a "probability of truth". On a practical level, it wil be an enormous interdisciplinary task and the results may well be bitterly disputed. It will likely be prohibitively expensive and will only provide a snapshot of the theory(s) in question. This type of approach will be most likely be used on a smaller scale to help accountants decide when to close down a research program I think.

It depends what you mean by true. If you mean episteme (i.e. absolute certain demonstrable knowledge) then according to Popper the probability of any theory being true is zero. A statement such us "Darwinism is 79% confirmed, say, is totally unsupportable. How can you meaningfully put a figure to any such probability. Even today, many practicing scientists remain unnaware of Poppers conclusion and that it has been generally accepted by philosophers of Science. The example of Newtons Laws of motion cannot be stated enough to demonstrate this point. They form the basis of classical Mechanics. His theory was considered by most scientists to have attained the status of "absolute certain, demonstrable knowledge". Newton had they believed uncovered the key to Gods design of the universe. The question was no longer whether Newtons Theories were episteme but how to prove this once and for all. Bold predictions were made which turned out to be spectacularly confirmed. Even today, subject to a few limited conditions, the accuracyof Newtons Laws of motion is unbelievable inspite of the fact that they are clearly not true in the absolute sense. Newtons Laws made many predictions which were well beyond experimental testing at the time. As experimental methods improved, e.g. the ability to test Newtons laws at higher speeds, his results continued to correspond with experiment for decades, leading people to generalise that they would hold under all conditions and for all time. We know now that Newtons Laws break down at speeds approaching the speed of light. This is a cautionary tale to science which has not quite sunk in to many, especially in the biology establishment. Now back to my original request. In The Facts of Life, Richard Milton claims that the enormous explanatory power of Darwinism (and one of the reasons it is still widely accepted by the public) is due in a large part to whole classes of explanations which while plausible are completely untestable. He refers generally to the “infinite elasticity of Darwinism to speculate endlessly while avoiding contact with the facts”. One such class of 'evidence' is exemplified by the account of “How the Giraffe” got its long neck. The giraffe account is my earliest recollection of Darwinism at school and I remember liking it because I found that I was able to make up convincing stories of my own of how this or that characteristic evolved. I am not referring at the moment to any modern day short-term lab experiments which may appear to support these ideas. I would just like peoples views on whether or not these explanations of historical adaptions purported to have occurred millions of years ago can ever be verified conclusively. Milton does point out that a number such explanations, which were given wide coverage initially, are now considered to be wrong. Can these explanations be backed up using fossil record for example. Should they form part of the body of scientific evidence supporting Darwinism.

This point comes down to how life is defined. We can choose to progressively dumb down the definition of life until anything can be considered living technically. For example, you could claim a single hydrogen atom was alive if your definition of living matter was anything that moves. It comes down to whether or not people generally accept your definition life and I believe that most scientists would not. Given that this is such a new field, the suggestion seems a premature and a bit overenthusiastic. While I am impressed by the protocells, they are mainly important in that they suggest the possibility that there could be a gradient of alive ish stuff. Now that you have indicated that abiogenesis is not something that Darwinisim applies itself to and not part of evolutionary theory, I would prefer to leave it to the side in order to concentrate on other points. No, that's non my intention here. But I would like to discuss the gaps in science. As I said, scientific discoveries cannot be used to compel anyone to take a position whether theist or atheist although they may well incline individuals one way or another i.e. to faith in God or faith in atheism. Centuries before Einstein showed a connection between space and time, theologians reasoned that the universe was created with time, not in time. This implies that space and time (and everything else) are created and come into existence together (note - it makes no sense to say “at the same time”). As far as I understand, The creator is utterly distinct from he Creation existing out-with the Creation. For this reason, there can be no direct evidence of the Creator within the creation. No talk of absolute proof or disproof. What I was getting at is that certain people in scientific authority as well as religious authority overstep the mark when they try to draw definite conclusions about the existence of God from science. Science, or more generally experience may incline us to believe in God but cannot prove it and vice versa. As I said, there is no compulsion. However, it's worse when scientists try to do this because people are supposed to trust their objectivity and honesty above all else. The general public as well as fellow scientists in other disciplines rely heavily on specialist to interpret the scientific 'scripture' for them without prejudice. For example, when prominent scientists such as Dawkins address groups of school children to preach that certain scientific theories can disprove the existence of God using arguments that are patently unscientific, it undermines public trust in all of science. No. He explicitly sets out his personal views in the postscript. He claims to be an agnostic. He also also claims to be open minded concerning the possibility of some kind of evolution but believes the case has still to be made. He goes further by claiming that evidence which supports alternative evolutionary mechanisms has been suppressed (can we leave this till later?). Are you agreeing with Richard Milton that Darwinism is now considered unfalsifiable? If so, you need to state whether or not you take this to mean that Darwinism has been proven. Remember: The old scientific ideal of epistēmē – of absolute certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be “absolutely certain”. This statement is taken from Karl Popper's “The Logic of Scientific Discovery. The emphasis and quotes are Popper's. Today, most scientists would agree with Popper that theories are never really confirmed by experiment, but can at best survive from one test to the next, remaining hostage to possible disproof tomorrow. I'm sorry, I know this sound unfair, but this statement alone is enough to ensure that Common ancestry like all other theories remain “tentative for ever”. To even begin verifying this statement, we would have to start by checking all the pre-Cambrian strata. In addition, it is possible to imagine countless other scenarios such as the one you mentioned above which would falsify common ancestry or Darwinism. The fact that you claim that only one is being looked for implies that the attempt is half hearted. A kind of token gesture. You're right, but he did say that in order to remain scientific, a theory should be falsifiable. But in any case, what if you could think of some new tests in future? e.g. when new data emerges, when separate fields which are related to Darwinism advance and begin to muscle in on "it's territory". I find it amazing that you are claiming that no one can think of any tests which could possibly falsify Darwinism. For a self confessed Popperian, you seem to be overly protective. Are you saying that at one time in the past, Darwinism was falsifiable but now, having survived a limited number of test, this is no longer the case so we are secure? “Once put forward, none of our none of our “anticipations” are dogmatically upheld. Our method of research is not to defend them in order to prove how right we were. On the contrary, we try to overthrow them. Using all the weapons of our logical, mathematical, and technical armoury, we try to prove that our anticipations were false – in order to put forward, in their stead, new unjustified and unjustifiable anticipations.” Karl Popper - The Logic of Scientific Discovery I think he's saying that whichever philosophy of science you support, whether Popper or Khun, Darwinism does not stand up well to either. Can we also discuss this later. It is an important point which Milton does address? It is interesting to note that in 1900, Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity. The decline of a paradigm is not marked necessarily by a decrease in the number of papers published under its umbrella. Even when a paradigm shift occurs, the 'falsified' paradigm can continue to have useful applications. I would not be surprised if more papers are currently published today which rely on Newtonian Mechanics than when it was (with hind sight) seen to be declining towards the end of the 19th century. Newtonian mathematics is much simpler than relativistic counterpart, and subject to a small number of restrictions it is still incredibly accurate. For these reasons and others, it continues to be taught widely in schools and universities. But there are many other obvious reasons which could account for the increase in publications. The world population is growing. The world economy is growing, Education is increasing. Science is now a multi billion dollar business. Consequently, the number of papers in many fields of science have been increasing steadily. No, the number of papers published is not a criterion for judging whether or not a paradigm is in decline. It is the extent to which the scientists increasingly rely on ad hoc hypotheses to explain anomalous data, accumulating as it does during the course of Khuns “normal science” that indicates when a paradigm is in decline. Explanations become increasingly complex and cumbersome and divisions within the closed community begin to show signs of forming. The rules of normal science loosen etc. Earlier you stated that Milton was "so ignorant of the philosophy of science" but your own "proof " does not seem to show much knowledge of Popper. There are a number of issues here. Richard Milton was asking if Darwins theory predicted any novel and as yet unobserved phenomena which could allow it to be falsified. This is a key test of the value of scientific theory according to Popper. Not how many papers are published. You stated earlier: “Darwinism is certainly falisifiable -- or was.” This implies that as far as Popperians are concerned, Darwinism is a poor theory. If you could elaborate a number of bold predictions not yet tested which were disprovable then it would have been a good theory. Subsequent testing and confirmation would render the theory “better corroborated” but not proven. Remember, any theory can show some evidence of corroboration but no amount of corroborating evidence increases even the probability of a theory being true. The probability is always zero. If you really are a Poperian, then you have not shown much evidence of this so far. I was hoping that you could have brought me up to date with some of the foundational questions of Darwinism. I personally believe that scientists should not be ashamed to wash their dirty linen in public or drag the skeletons from the closet now and again and that it benefits science in the long run.

Thanks for clearing up this point. It makes sense that the study of abiogenesis (as you call it) is considered separately. While Darwin recognised this as a major stumbling block to providing a complete explanation of how life might have emerged from inert matter, he had no choice but to leave it to future generations to ponder over. I agree that you need to take some things for granted in any given field of science and that it was perfectly reasonable to omit this question from evolutionary study. I would prefer to call abiogenesis a problem to be put aside for later, rather than a founding axiom of evolutionary theory. It is inevitable that this problem would have to be reconsidered when advances in science allowed. I checked out the article on protocells. While I was amazed to find protein molecules appearing to self organise into structures resembling cell membranes,no explanation for this behaviour was given. Also, term protocell is a bit misleading, as going by what I've found on the web so far, this is one plausible step in a long chain which would be required to produce something as complex as the cells we have today. I need to look into this area but my gut instinct is that there is more going on here than chemistry as we know it. I believe the “god-of-the-gaps” mentality works both ways. It is misused even by prominent scientists on both sides of the atheism vs theism debate. Both extrapolate that based on scientific problems or discoveries that God either does or does not need to exist. The truth is that there is no compulsion to accept either view. The evidence is there, make of it what you will. One complaint of Richard Milton is that Darwinism no longer turns up novel facts. He classes it a degenerating paradigm. He also claims that it is un-falsifiabil. I would be greatfull if someone could put these claims in perspective. I apologise if these problems are in no particular order i'm just presenting them according to my own preference and not following the book.

I looked around the net and was unable to find any evidence that the other books this guy Milton produced point to him being a Darwin hater. Neither does "The Facts of Life" appear to contain any offensive statements. He even seems to be open minded to the idea of evolution. Just not with natural selection as the driving force. I'm sorry foodchain but your answer is just not what I was hoping for. This is exactly the stance taken by most evangelical Christians nowadays when I refer them to texts which point to anomalies in the Bible. They ignore the specific point I raise. They then attack the critic as an enemy of Christianity and tell me to take a basic bible course, while believing that somewhere out there some scholar has already worked out a plausible answer. They never read the book. When this approach is taken by scientists, it leaves us open to the charge of having double standards. I know what you are saying Phil. No one has time to rebutt a whole book. The problem is if we all take that line, invalid points go unchallenged and misinformation spreads through our negligence. Science works best when it attempts to break problems down into manageable chunks. I did not ask you to rebutt the whole book but simply asked for help with one point which was particularly troubling me. I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection. I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

I was given a copy of the above book by one of my workmate. I come from a physics background and was unable to answer a lot of his points, which were evidently taken from the above book. I looked around the web and found this thread but I was dissappointed to find that the thread quickly went off topic. I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism! Thereafter, it was established that Milton must be a closet creationist. Then the meaning of Darwinism was discussed from the point of view of creationists, aetheists, different scientists etc. (and I thought physics had problems right now) It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time. Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims. Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.