Participants:
Series Code: GFF
Program Code: GFF000006S
|
00:01 ♪ ♪ Subodh K. Pandit, M.D.
00:57 We have now come to Session Five and I would like to remind you 01:01 that we have challenged ourselves to remain as neutral 01:05 inquirers. No matter what the information that is brought we 01:10 will remain as neutral inquirers and use the four factors we 01:16 need to provide that atmosphere. So let's remind ourselves again: 01:20 Humility, honesty, calmness and respect. In the last session, 01:27 we looked at the theory of evolution and whether its 01:31 fundamental precepts would stand scrutiny. Now we're going to 01:37 look at it from another angle. Is the theory of evolution a 01:42 true scientific theory? Now to do that we have to first 01:47 establish the criteria that make any theory a truly scientific 01:52 theory. So here are the criteria that people usually use. There 01:57 are positive criteria and negative criteria. The positive 02:03 criteria are basically four. Number one: A relatively new 02:08 concept. A scientist does not have to rehash somebody else 02:14 work. It will not be a good theory, not a true scientific 02:17 theory if he does that. Number two: It should be testable. 02:22 Number three: It should be backed by convincing evidence. 02:26 And number four: It should have predictive value. The negative 02:32 criteria and those that a good solid scientific theory should 02:35 not have. There are four there too. The theory should not 02:40 confess ignorance at critical points. Number two: It should 02:45 not use circular reasoning. Number three: It should not 02:50 express contradictory ideas. And number four: It should not 02:54 ask us to require imagination so that we can understand what 02:59 the theory says. So let's look at each of those. Let's start 03:03 with the positive criteria. Number one: It should be a new 03:08 or a relatively new concept. Actually, natural selection was 03:14 described way before Darwin very intelligently by a non 03:19 evolutionist according to Loren Eiseley. But this natural 03:24 selection did not go on and on to form all the organisms. It 03:30 just shifted one organism through its variation or to a 03:35 subspecies, not just on and on. And so Darwin did come along 03:39 and he did say something new. He said that these variations 03:43 could go on and on, these changes could go on and on. And 03:47 so the concept really is new because it's an unlimited change 03:51 that Darwin described by which one organism became all that we 03:57 see around us today. How about testability? Is the theory of 04:03 evolution truly testable in the scientific terms of that word? 04:08 There is something known as the doctrine of falsifiability. 04:12 Now if this is 04:15 complex and confusing, don't worry. You can just put 04:21 it aside for now but I will just mention it. "A theory which is 04:25 not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific." That's 04:31 what Karl Popper said and he was known as the dean of the modern 04:36 philosophy of science. He further went on to say: 04:39 "...the criterion of the scientific status of a theory 04:43 is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." 04:48 In other words, a scientific theory must not only allow 04:52 itself to be shown correct by the data gathered but must also 04:57 allow itself to be shown wrong or false by any of the data that 05:01 was gathered. It's not that it should be shown correct. It 05:06 should also be shown wrong if it is wrong. The latter, this part, 05:10 is known as the doctrine of falsifiability. It requires a 05:15 description within the theory of what kind of data would prove it 05:23 wrong if it is wrong. That's why it is called the doctrine of 05:27 falsifiability. And he describes certain theories. This is Karl 05:35 Popper, described certain theories. He said, "These 05:37 theories were able to explain practically everything that 05:40 happened..." "Whatever happened always confirmed it." 05:44 Let's underline those words or bold those words. "Whatever 05:49 happened always confirmed it." 05:51 So now you might be a little confused, so let me tell you or 05:55 give you an example of a testable theory and a non 05:59 testable theory. First a testable theory. In simple words 06:04 if I said Mr. A is progressive and we know why he is 06:10 progressive when he goes forward he's progressing. This theory 06:15 can be tested because it can be shown true if he is going 06:20 forward. But if he is found to standstill or go backward 06:25 then this theory has been proved wrong. Therefore this theory 06:29 that Mr. A is progressive can be tested. Now a non-testable 06:34 theory. Almost the same words but look at what happens here. 06:40 The theory here says Mr. A is always progressive whether he 06:46 goes backward, stands still or goes forward. Think. This theory 06:53 cannot be tested because it cannot be shown false by any 06:58 conceivable data. So whether he goes forward or backward or 07:03 stands still he's still progressive. But what if he's 07:06 not progressive. We cannot show that. Therefore this is non 07:11 testable and a theory that makes itself shown to be non-testable 07:15 is not a scientific theory. Now with that idea in 07:22 mind let's look at what some of the evolutionists have said 07:26 about their own theory. And here is Paul Ehrlich and Elsie Burch 07:33 both evolutionists. Look at their confession. "Our theory of 07:36 evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any 07:40 possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be 07:45 fitted into it...No one can think of ways to test it...They 07:49 have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by 07:54 most of us as part of our training." So the theory of 07:59 evolution is not scientific according to that because it is 08:04 not testable in a major way. In other words, they agree that 08:08 it's a dogma. That does not answer then the doctrine of 08:13 falsifiability. What's dogma? It's a claim or a statement 08:17 that does not require any evidence for its support and 08:20 will not tolerate any degree of questioning or scrutiny or 08:24 challenge. Next Convincing Data: A good theory should have 08:31 enough of convincing data. But look at these two statements; 08:35 one is by the late Stephen Gould He was the professor of 08:40 paleontology at Harvard University and after looking at 08:45 the information we have compared to what we're supposed to have 08:48 this is what he said: "We fancy ourselves as the only true 08:53 students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account 08:58 of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so 09:03 bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. 09:07 How about another sentence? Listen to this statement: "When 09:13 we descend to the details we cannot prove that 09:16 a single species 09:18 has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are 09:22 beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory." Do 09:27 you know who said those words? Think. Charles Darwin himself. 09:34 Really what of that theory now? We can't even prove that one 09:41 species has changed. And what about the whole classification 09:45 of species to genus to family to order, phylum, kingdom, domain? 09:50 "Evolution requires intermediate forms" said David Kitts, 09:57 "between species, and paleontology does not provide 10:01 them." So we don't have the data What about the words from Philip 10:06 Handler? "Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the 10:11 animals, and in virtually not a single case is there fossil 10:15 evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two 10:19 looked like." In other words, we have these phyla but we don't 10:23 what was before it to have given it these phyla. "The known 10:29 fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic 10:33 evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." How 10:38 about another statement of Stephen Gould? "In any local 10:41 area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady 10:45 steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at 10:50 once and fully formed." So what about those little changes that 10:54 brought it to its position. We don't have data on that. So 10:59 demonstration of change from one species to another which is 11:03 called genealogy, parent, daughter would require a smooth 11:09 chain of intermediates linking one to the other. Here is one 11:14 and so many changes, the next one became changed a little bit 11:18 and then a little bit more and so many generations later well 11:21 that one has changed enough to call it another species. We have 11:25 250,000 fossil species in all the museums of the world. So we 11:32 have 250,000 chances of producing change that connect 11:37 one species to another. How many changes should we have 11:43 to make sure our theory is truly a solid scientific theory? Out 11:49 of 250,000 chances how many smooth changes do we have. Do 11:56 you know? Not one. "Nobody knew better than Darwin what he had 12:02 failed to prove." George Levine in the introduction to the book 12:06 Origin of Species. "There is no more conclusive refutation of 12:11 Darwinism than that furnished by paleontology..." or the 12:14 fossil record. Why? This is what Oswald Spengler said: "We find 12:19 perfectly stable and unaltered forms...that appear suddenly 12:24 and at once in their definitive shape...without transition 12:28 types." That is not what the theory says you should have 12:34 found. Then comes something known as the Cambrian Explosion. 12:39 You see the geologic record goes from one layer to the next and 12:44 to the next and in these layers we find fossils which are 12:48 progressing from the simpler forms to the more complex and 12:51 more complex and finally we have humans. That's how it went. 12:55 The Cambrian Explosion describes a certain level in which the 13:01 previous level had very simple, small organisms, not complex 13:10 body parts. But suddenly at the very next strata of the 13:16 geologic column you find a whole lot of phylum-level organisms. 13:23 Remember what I said phylum was? Way up there; species, family, 13:28 order, class, phylum. So without going through all of them 13:33 suddenly we find in this geologic strata a whole lot of 13:38 phyla. Phyla, phylum level organisms. Look at what Roger 13:43 Lewin said: "Compared to the 30 or so extant phyla..." that 13:48 means those that we have here... "some people estimate that the 13:51 Cambrian Explosion may have generated as many as 100." 13:56 From a few to 100. And remember what we said about the 14:01 classification. Look at that species, genus, family, order, 14:07 class and then phylum. The phylum level organisms in the 14:11 Cambrian Explosion came out of nowhere. Further, no new phylum 14:18 has ever developed after the Cambrian Explosion which is 14:22 supposed to have happened more than 500 million years ago. So 14:29 as Paul Sheehan said more phyla in the very, very beginning than 14:31 now exist, the whole thing turns out to be reversed. How about 14:37 features of the actual data? Genetic changes are supposed to 14:43 cause evolution. But lethal mutations which are 14:46 genetic changes 14:48 outnumbered the ordinary ones, the visible ones by 20 to 1. So 14:54 any time you have a good mutation you have 20 bad ones. 14:56 So which way are we going? Here's what Heribert Nilsson 15:02 said: "It is therefore absolutely impossible to build 15:06 current evolution on mutations (genetic changes) or on 15:10 recombination's" which are genetic changes too. How about 15:14 the question of these changes being very, very small. "By this 15:19 theory..." of small changes... "innumerable transitional forms 15:23 must have existed." Charles Darwin says: "The number of 15:26 intermediates must be truly enormous." In fact, George 15:31 Levine in describing that says: "In Darwin's world, there are no 15:34 permanent boundaries and virtually every organism varies 15:38 through time...he sets everything from rocks to 15:41 barnacles to birds and trees in motion." In other words, this is 15:48 what Oswald Spengler says: "There ought to be merely 15:51 'transitional' types..." That's why he had said this earlier 15:55 statement: "There is no more conclusive refutation of 15:59 Darwinism than that furnished by paleontology. There out to be 16:03 merely 'transitional' types, no definition and no species. 16:07 Instead of this, we find perfectly stable forms...that 16:11 appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape, that do 16:13 not thereafter evolve towards other adaptations." 16:19 How about the real bits of information we now have? 16:22 "The fruit fly whose geographical, biotopical, urban 16:25 and rural genotypes are now known inside out seems not to 16:29 have changed since the remotest times." Coelacanths, a type of 16:33 fish, have undergoing little change in 300 million years. 16:38 Paradoxically, says Richard Goldsmith, "...all orders or 16:44 families known appear suddenly and without any apparent 16:47 transition." "New species almost always appeared suddenly with no 16:53 intermediate links to ancestors." So the suddenness 16:57 doesn't jive with the gradual picture that is supposed to have 17:04 shown. How about the fact that the changes were accumulative? 17:07 Remember we said one small change write it down for a little 17:10 while another small change added to that so now we have 17:12 two changes and three and four and by the time a hundred 17:15 changes come by, come there, well we have shifted from this 17:18 species to another. But in 1980 there was a very historic 17:25 meeting of evolutionists in Chicago and Roger Lewin was 17:31 one of the scientists' reporters. Look at his words: "The central 17:39 question of the Chicago Conference was whether the 17:42 mechanics underlying micro evolution..." which is a change 17:45 species just to subspecies... "can be extrapolated..." or 17:50 pulled out... "to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution..." 17:54 meaning species, genus, the family, order, phylum, 17:57 kingdom... "At 17:59 the risk of doing violence to the positions of some at the 18:03 meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No." In other 18:08 words changes do not accumulate and this is echoed by Francisco 18:11 Ayala who is a well known evolutionist. This is what he 18:17 said: "I am now convinced from what the Paleontologists..." 18:22 those who study fossils... "say, that changes do not accumulate." 18:26 How about the claim that the changes are for the better? 18:30 Genetic changes do not improve organisms; mutants, or those 18:37 that have those changes, are deleterious to their carriers. 18:41 In other words, those changes affect adversely. That's what 18:44 the next statement says: "Mutations [genetic changes] 18:47 invariably affect adversely." And Pierre-Paul Grasse says: 18:53 "Mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." So factwise, 18:59 datawise, we are having a difficult time. How about the 19:03 whether there is predictive value. Here's a prediction 19:06 made by Charles Darwin: 19:07 "No organism wholly soft can be preserved." 19:12 What does the observation show? This is a recent statement by 19:16 Hagadorn: "Thousands of jellyfish..." totally soft 19:22 bodied... "many bigger than a dinner plate are found in at 19:25 lease seven different horizons sandstone." And so David Raup, 19:30 the dean of the Museum of Natural History in Chicago said: 19:33 "The predictive (or postdictive) power of the theory is almost 19:37 nil." Wow! Does it look like the positive criteria have been met? 19:44 How about the negative criteria? Ignorance: No good scientific 19:51 theory should say I don't know. But look at Charles Darwin's own 19:55 words: "Our profound ignorance" he says: "We know nothing 19:59 about the 20:01 origin or history of any of our domestic breeds." And yet that 20:04 is the basis of him providing the theory of evolution, when he 20:07 looked at domestic breeds. And he says we know nothing. How about 20:11 his next statement: "Vertebrates have descended from an ancient 20:15 prototype of which we know nothing." Then how do 20:20 we know they 20:21 we came from them if we know nothing of that? Errol White 20:25 says this: "Lung fishes have their origins firmly based in 20:29 nothing...I have often thought how little I should like to have 20:34 to provide organic evolution in a court of law." And he's the 20:38 president of the Linnean Society of London. That's a big 20:41 evolutionary society. Circular reasoning. What is circular 20:46 reasoning? It's like this: I'm telling you the truth and when 20:50 you ask me how do I know you are telling me the truth? My answer 20:54 is because I'm telling you. In other words, the place of the 20:57 information is also the place of the confirmation of the 21:01 information. That is circular reasoning. Look at this 21:04 statement of Charles Darwin: "Based on the theory of natural 21:09 selection all living species have been connected with the 21:12 parent-species of each genus." The connection of parent in 21:19 species to daughter species is the theory of evolution. So 21:23 based on the theory the Theory is correct. How about the next 21:26 one? Based on the theory of descent, these characters have 21:29 been inherited from a common ancestor." But ancestral factor 21:34 that have gone over to the next generation is the theory. So 21:38 based on the theory, the theory is correct. It would be wouldn't 21:43 it? So Ager said: "We land ourselves immediately in an 21:49 impossible circular argument." "By making our explanation into 21:54 the definition... "the condition to be explained, we express not 21:58 scientific hypotheses but belief... Dogmatic endeavors 22:01 of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science." 22:06 How about the place of contradictions? We must not 22:11 state a fact and then contradict it by another statement. But 22:16 look at these couple of statements by Charles Darwin: 22:19 "We never know the exact character of the common 22:24 ancestor." And yet another statement: "We may feel sure 22:29 that these characters have been inherited from a common ancestor 22:33 How can you be sure of what you never know? It is 22:38 contradictory. Here's another one: "The fossil evidence does 22:42 not afford plain evidence of gradation." That means small 22:47 changes. And yet another statement: "Geology..." which is 22:50 the fossil record... "plainly declares that all species have 22:54 changed in the manner that my theory requires." I don't think 22:59 facts can plainly declare what it cannot show. Number four: 23:07 The question of imagination. These again are the words of 23:14 Charles Darwin. "It is good thus to try in our imagination to 23:19 give any form some advantage over another." In other words, 23:25 the advantage is not really seen it's not really there in the 23:30 data, we must supply that with our imagination. Here's another 23:35 sentence: "We have only to suppose their common progenitor" 23:38 Why should you have to suppose? Because it is not there in the 23:43 data. And one we suppose "then natural selection will account 23:47 for the infinite diversity." George Levine in the 23:52 introduction to the Origin of Species says: "Darwin's 23:55 imagination and his science, his imaginative science." So a lot 24:01 of that is really imagination that we are supposed to use... 24:06 but really! Which scientific theory leans on imagination? 24:12 No, scientific theories set themselves strongly on data that 24:17 can be collected and that can be analyzed. So the theory of 24:22 evolution does not have any of the positive criteria that 24:25 a good scientific theory should have. On the contrary, it 24:29 possesses all the negative criteria that a good scientific 24:33 theory should not have. So it can be proposed as an idea or 24:38 a proposition but not as fact. So we have already agreed that 24:44 natural selection is a real phenomenon, but it does not 24:49 produce anything more than variations and subspecies. We 24:54 have already agreed that evolution does occur. The word 24:58 evolution, yes it does occur. But it's a limited process, in 25:02 that species do form variations and subspecies. But the Theory 25:08 of Evolution, which states that the changes were unlimited, and 25:12 involved the entire spectrum of biological classification, is 25:17 highly suspect today. So the Theory of Evolution really is 25:23 not science. It's actually history. It's a historical 25:27 construct that is thrust onto the science of Biology. But it 25:30 so bad history that nobody would teach it as history 25:35 in a reputable 25:36 school or university. So the Theory of Evolution fails as 25:41 science flops as history and for it to rise any higher than 25:46 mere speculation it, here are the words of Murray Eden: 25:49 It "must await the discovery of new natural laws, physical, 25:53 physicochemical and biological" Look at the title of his paper. 26:00 Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism as a Scientific Theory. So what 26:09 are we looking at? We have looked at the fundamental claims 26:16 of the theory. We've looked at whether the theory can really 26:21 meet the criteria of a good scientific theory and it seems 26:25 to have failed in both. Therefore the second proposition 26:30 we had made earlier and which is more reasonable because of 26:37 information we have in our hands today. And the second 26:39 proposition was this: If the Theory of Evolution is not 26:43 scientific, then "nature," and Its study could endorse the 26:49 claim that God is essential and does in fact exist. What we are 26:55 saying is that we must go where the argument leads according to 27:00 Socrates quoted by Plato. We'll meet again at the next session. 27:05 If you have enjoyed this presentation with Dr. Subodh 27:10 Pandit and wish to watch more of this unique 13 part series for 27:15 free online visit the website, GodFactOrFiction.com. That's 27:21 GodFactOrFiction.com. If you would like to order this 27:24 fascinating series on DVD it is now available from White Horse 27:28 Media... 27:37 Dr. Subodh Pandit has written two eye-opening books entitled 27:40 Come Search With Me: Does God Really Exist? and Come Search 27:45 With Me: The Weight of Evidence which further explore the topics 27:48 of evolution, theism, atheism and religion... 27:54 ♪ ♪ |
Revised 2021-08-19