November 1, 2010

ONLY ASSUME YOUR THEORY INFALLIBLE...:

What Is It About Butterflies that Drives Men to Doubt Darwin? (David Klinghoffer, November 1, 2010, Evolution News & Views)

In the same tradition of butterfly-induced Darwin heresy, meet Bernard d'Abrera. A kind of latter-day Audubon of lepidoptera, D'Abrera is a philosopher of science, renowned butterfly photographer, one of the world's most formidable lepidopterists -- and if anything, an even more furious Darwin doubter than Nabokov. His series of enormous volumes, The Butterflies of the World, a heroic act of categorization and illustration, is almost completed with the recent publication of Butterflies of the Afrotropical Region, Part III: Lycaenidae, Riodinidae, in a revised edition including a lengthy assemblage of introductory essays. The latter comprise one of the most colorful, amusing, enraged, and wildly unclassifiable attacks on Darwinism that I've come across.
[...]

He pours particular scorn on the late Harvard zoologist and would be Darwin heir Ernest Mayr, from whom d'Abrera offers a quotation that sums up everything he finds fraudulent in evolutionary thinking. Mayr explained how evolutionary biology's status as a "historical science" exempts evolutionists from normal standards of scientific argumentation:

...the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that lead to the events one is trying to explain [emphasis added].

The evolutionist begins with the assumption that the events in question have already taken place, life's development has occurred, by means of Darwinian processes. He seeks only to "explicate" in more detail how this happened. His method consists of imagining a historical scenario and then spinning out a fictional narrative, in line with a theory that's already held to be true before any proof has been offered

When you reason this way, as Marxists and Freudians also delightedly found in their respective pseudo-scientific fields, it's almost eerie how all the evidence you consider appears to uniformly confirm your theory.


...and all evidence can be explained away in its light.


Posted by Orrin Judd at November 1, 2010 5:26 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« HOW EXACTLY COULD A LIBERAL RALLY HAVE BEEN FUNNY?: | Main | FINDING THE NEXT CAMERON: »