¤ ¤ Subodh K. Pandit, M.D.
00:00:01.36\00:00:56.99
We have now come to Session Five
and I would like to remind you
00:00:57.02\00:01:01.92
that we have challenged
ourselves to remain as neutral
00:01:01.96\00:01:05.26
inquirers. No matter what the
information that is brought we
00:01:05.29\00:01:10.63
will remain as neutral inquirers
and use the four factors we
00:01:10.67\00:01:15.97
need to provide that atmosphere.
So let's remind ourselves again:
00:01:16.00\00:01:20.18
Humility, honesty, calmness and
respect. In the last session,
00:01:20.21\00:01:27.72
we looked at the theory
of evolution and whether its
00:01:27.75\00:01:31.25
fundamental precepts would stand
scrutiny. Now we're going to
00:01:31.29\00:01:37.13
look at it from another angle.
Is the theory of evolution a
00:01:37.16\00:01:42.30
true scientific theory?
Now to do that we have to first
00:01:42.33\00:01:47.67
establish the criteria that make
any theory a truly scientific
00:01:47.70\00:01:52.37
theory. So here are the criteria
that people usually use. There
00:01:52.41\00:01:57.65
are positive criteria and
negative criteria. The positive
00:01:57.68\00:02:03.02
criteria are basically four.
Number one: A relatively new
00:02:03.05\00:02:08.22
concept. A scientist does
not have to rehash somebody else
00:02:08.26\00:02:14.60
work. It will not be a good
theory, not a true scientific
00:02:14.63\00:02:17.90
theory if he does that. Number
two: It should be testable.
00:02:17.93\00:02:22.47
Number three: It should be
backed by convincing evidence.
00:02:22.50\00:02:26.04
And number four: It should have
predictive value. The negative
00:02:26.07\00:02:32.15
criteria and those that a good
solid scientific theory should
00:02:32.18\00:02:35.92
not have. There are four
there too. The theory should not
00:02:35.95\00:02:40.82
confess ignorance at critical
points. Number two: It should
00:02:40.86\00:02:45.79
not use circular reasoning.
Number three: It should not
00:02:45.83\00:02:50.30
express contradictory ideas.
And number four: It should not
00:02:50.33\00:02:54.00
ask us to require imagination
so that we can understand what
00:02:54.04\00:02:59.11
the theory says. So let's look
at each of those. Let's start
00:02:59.14\00:03:03.11
with the positive criteria.
Number one: It should be a new
00:03:03.14\00:03:08.12
or a relatively new concept.
Actually, natural selection was
00:03:08.15\00:03:14.66
described way before Darwin
very intelligently by a non
00:03:14.69\00:03:19.29
evolutionist according to
Loren Eiseley. But this natural
00:03:19.33\00:03:24.47
selection did not go on and
on to form all the organisms. It
00:03:24.50\00:03:30.24
just shifted one organism
through its variation or to a
00:03:30.27\00:03:35.58
subspecies, not just on and
on. And so Darwin did come along
00:03:35.61\00:03:39.48
and he did say something new.
He said that these variations
00:03:39.51\00:03:43.82
could go on and on, these
changes could go on and on. And
00:03:43.85\00:03:47.56
so the concept really is new
because it's an unlimited change
00:03:47.59\00:03:51.86
that Darwin described by which
one organism became all that we
00:03:51.89\00:03:57.40
see around us today. How about
testability? Is the theory of
00:03:57.43\00:04:02.97
evolution truly testable in the
scientific terms of that word?
00:04:03.00\00:04:08.14
There is something known as
the doctrine of falsifiability.
00:04:08.18\00:04:12.78
Now if this is
00:04:12.81\00:04:15.18
complex and confusing,
don't worry. You can just put
00:04:15.22\00:04:21.39
it aside for now but I will just
mention it. "A theory which is
00:04:21.42\00:04:25.96
not refutable by any conceivable
event is non-scientific." That's
00:04:25.99\00:04:31.43
what Karl Popper said and he was
known as the dean of the modern
00:04:31.47\00:04:36.04
philosophy of science.
He further went on to say:
00:04:36.07\00:04:39.17
"...the criterion of the
scientific status of a theory
00:04:39.21\00:04:43.08
is its falsifiability, or
refutability, or testability."
00:04:43.11\00:04:48.38
In other words, a scientific
theory must not only allow
00:04:48.42\00:04:52.59
itself to be shown correct by
the data gathered but must also
00:04:52.62\00:04:57.59
allow itself to be shown wrong
or false by any of the data that
00:04:57.63\00:05:01.93
was gathered. It's not that
it should be shown correct. It
00:05:01.96\00:05:06.67
should also be shown wrong if it
is wrong. The latter, this part,
00:05:06.70\00:05:10.64
is known as the doctrine of
falsifiability. It requires a
00:05:10.67\00:05:15.68
description within the theory of
what kind of data would prove it
00:05:15.71\00:05:23.52
wrong if it is wrong. That's
why it is called the doctrine of
00:05:23.55\00:05:27.72
falsifiability. And he describes
certain theories. This is Karl
00:05:27.76\00:05:35.33
Popper, described certain
theories. He said, "These
00:05:35.36\00:05:37.63
theories were able to explain
practically everything that
00:05:37.67\00:05:40.74
happened..." "Whatever
happened always confirmed it."
00:05:40.77\00:05:44.21
Let's underline those words
or bold those words. "Whatever
00:05:44.24\00:05:49.41
happened always confirmed it."
00:05:49.44\00:05:51.65
So now you might be a little
confused, so let me tell you or
00:05:51.68\00:05:55.65
give you an example of a
testable theory and a non
00:05:55.68\00:05:59.82
testable theory. First a
testable theory. In simple words
00:05:59.85\00:06:04.39
if I said Mr. A is progressive
and we know why he is
00:06:04.43\00:06:10.57
progressive when he goes forward
he's progressing. This theory
00:06:10.60\00:06:15.10
can be tested because it
can be shown true if he is going
00:06:15.14\00:06:20.08
forward. But if he is found
to standstill or go backward
00:06:20.11\00:06:24.98
then this theory has been proved
wrong. Therefore this theory
00:06:25.01\00:06:29.25
that Mr. A is progressive can
be tested. Now a non-testable
00:06:29.28\00:06:34.86
theory. Almost the same words
but look at what happens here.
00:06:34.89\00:06:40.00
The theory here says Mr. A
is always progressive whether he
00:06:40.03\00:06:46.50
goes backward, stands still or
goes forward. Think. This theory
00:06:46.53\00:06:53.04
cannot be tested because it
cannot be shown false by any
00:06:53.07\00:06:58.18
conceivable data. So whether
he goes forward or backward or
00:06:58.21\00:07:03.12
stands still he's still
progressive. But what if he's
00:07:03.15\00:07:06.35
not progressive. We cannot
show that. Therefore this is non
00:07:06.39\00:07:11.56
testable and a theory that makes
itself shown to be non-testable
00:07:11.59\00:07:15.50
is not a scientific
theory. Now with that idea in
00:07:15.53\00:07:22.14
mind let's look at what some
of the evolutionists have said
00:07:22.17\00:07:26.84
about their own theory. And here
is Paul Ehrlich and Elsie Burch
00:07:26.88\00:07:33.05
both evolutionists. Look at
their confession. "Our theory of
00:07:33.08\00:07:36.72
evolution has become...one
which cannot be refuted by any
00:07:36.75\00:07:40.96
possible observation. Every
conceivable observation can be
00:07:40.99\00:07:45.16
fitted into it...No one can
think of ways to test it...They
00:07:45.19\00:07:49.86
have become part of an
evolutionary dogma accepted by
00:07:49.90\00:07:54.44
most of us as part of our
training." So the theory of
00:07:54.47\00:07:59.74
evolution is not scientific
according to that because it is
00:07:59.77\00:08:04.05
not testable in a major way.
In other words, they agree that
00:08:04.08\00:08:08.08
it's a dogma. That does
not answer then the doctrine of
00:08:08.12\00:08:13.02
falsifiability. What's dogma?
It's a claim or a statement
00:08:13.05\00:08:17.33
that does not require any
evidence for its support and
00:08:17.36\00:08:20.50
will not tolerate any degree
of questioning or scrutiny or
00:08:20.53\00:08:24.63
challenge. Next Convincing
Data: A good theory should have
00:08:24.67\00:08:31.47
enough of convincing data. But
look at these two statements;
00:08:31.51\00:08:35.84
one is by the late Stephen
Gould He was the professor of
00:08:35.88\00:08:40.08
paleontology at Harvard
University and after looking at
00:08:40.12\00:08:45.32
the information we have compared
to what we're supposed to have
00:08:45.35\00:08:48.72
this is what he said: "We
fancy ourselves as the only true
00:08:48.76\00:08:53.80
students of life's history, yet
to preserve our favored account
00:08:53.83\00:08:58.50
of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so
00:08:58.53\00:09:03.00
bad that we never see the very
process we profess to study.
00:09:03.04\00:09:07.04
How about another sentence?
Listen to this statement: "When
00:09:07.08\00:09:13.08
we descend to the
details we cannot prove that
00:09:13.11\00:09:16.48
a single species
00:09:16.52\00:09:18.22
has changed; nor can we prove
that the supposed changes are
00:09:18.25\00:09:22.72
beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory." Do
00:09:22.76\00:09:27.70
you know who said those words?
Think. Charles Darwin himself.
00:09:27.73\00:09:34.10
Really what of that theory now?
We can't even prove that one
00:09:34.14\00:09:41.58
species has changed. And what
about the whole classification
00:09:41.61\00:09:45.18
of species to genus to family to
order, phylum, kingdom, domain?
00:09:45.21\00:09:50.59
"Evolution requires intermediate
forms" said David Kitts,
00:09:50.62\00:09:57.06
"between species, and
paleontology does not provide
00:09:57.09\00:10:01.13
them." So we don't have the data
What about the words from Philip
00:10:01.16\00:10:06.03
Handler? "Some 25 major
phyla are recognized for all the
00:10:06.07\00:10:11.71
animals, and in virtually not
a single case is there fossil
00:10:11.74\00:10:15.84
evidence to demonstrate what
the common ancestry of any two
00:10:15.88\00:10:19.75
looked like." In other words,
we have these phyla but we don't
00:10:19.78\00:10:23.42
what was before it to have
given it these phyla. "The known
00:10:23.45\00:10:29.06
fossil record fails to document
a single example of phyletic
00:10:29.09\00:10:32.99
evolution accomplishing a major
morphologic transition." How
00:10:33.03\00:10:38.03
about another statement of
Stephen Gould? "In any local
00:10:38.07\00:10:41.30
area, a species does not
arise gradually by the steady
00:10:41.34\00:10:45.87
steady transformation of
its ancestors; it appears all at
00:10:45.91\00:10:50.18
once and fully formed." So what
about those little changes that
00:10:50.21\00:10:54.22
brought it to its position.
We don't have data on that. So
00:10:54.25\00:10:59.85
demonstration of change from
one species to another which is
00:10:59.89\00:11:03.73
called genealogy, parent,
daughter would require a smooth
00:11:03.76\00:11:09.66
chain of intermediates linking
one to the other. Here is one
00:11:09.70\00:11:14.54
and so many changes, the next
one became changed a little bit
00:11:14.57\00:11:18.11
and then a little bit more and
so many generations later well
00:11:18.14\00:11:21.31
that one has changed enough to
call it another species. We have
00:11:21.34\00:11:25.85
250,000 fossil species in all
the museums of the world. So we
00:11:25.88\00:11:32.29
have 250,000 chances of
producing change that connect
00:11:32.32\00:11:37.83
one species to another.
How many changes should we have
00:11:37.86\00:11:43.67
to make sure our theory is truly
a solid scientific theory? Out
00:11:43.70\00:11:49.90
of 250,000 chances how many
smooth changes do we have. Do
00:11:49.94\00:11:55.98
you know? Not one. "Nobody knew
better than Darwin what he had
00:11:56.01\00:12:02.42
failed to prove." George Levine
in the introduction to the book
00:12:02.45\00:12:06.39
Origin of Species. "There is
no more conclusive refutation of
00:12:06.42\00:12:11.33
Darwinism than that furnished
by paleontology..." or the
00:12:11.36\00:12:14.86
fossil record. Why? This is what
Oswald Spengler said: "We find
00:12:14.90\00:12:19.53
perfectly stable and unaltered
forms...that appear suddenly
00:12:19.57\00:12:24.54
and at once in their definitive
shape...without transition
00:12:24.57\00:12:28.88
types." That is not what
the theory says you should have
00:12:28.91\00:12:34.28
found. Then comes something
known as the Cambrian Explosion.
00:12:34.32\00:12:39.25
You see the geologic record goes
from one layer to the next and
00:12:39.29\00:12:44.79
to the next and in these
layers we find fossils which are
00:12:44.83\00:12:48.66
progressing from the simpler
forms to the more complex and
00:12:48.70\00:12:51.93
more complex and finally we
have humans. That's how it went.
00:12:51.97\00:12:55.50
The Cambrian Explosion describes
a certain level in which the
00:12:55.54\00:13:01.48
previous level had very simple,
small organisms, not complex
00:13:01.51\00:13:10.42
body parts. But suddenly
at the very next strata of the
00:13:10.45\00:13:16.62
geologic column you find a whole
lot of phylum-level organisms.
00:13:16.66\00:13:23.77
Remember what I said phylum was?
Way up there; species, family,
00:13:23.80\00:13:28.64
order, class, phylum. So without
going through all of them
00:13:28.67\00:13:33.01
suddenly we find in this
geologic strata a whole lot of
00:13:33.04\00:13:38.95
phyla. Phyla, phylum level
organisms. Look at what Roger
00:13:38.98\00:13:43.85
Lewin said: "Compared to the
30 or so extant phyla..." that
00:13:43.89\00:13:48.06
means those that we have here...
"some people estimate that the
00:13:48.09\00:13:51.39
Cambrian Explosion may
have generated as many as 100."
00:13:51.43\00:13:56.03
From a few to 100. And
remember what we said about the
00:13:56.06\00:14:01.14
classification. Look at that
species, genus, family, order,
00:14:01.17\00:14:07.48
class and then phylum. The
phylum level organisms in the
00:14:07.51\00:14:11.88
Cambrian Explosion came out of
nowhere. Further, no new phylum
00:14:11.91\00:14:18.65
has ever developed after
the Cambrian Explosion which is
00:14:18.69\00:14:22.72
supposed to have happened more
than 500 million years ago. So
00:14:22.76\00:14:28.96
as Paul Sheehan said more phyla
in the very, very beginning than
00:14:29.00\00:14:31.63
now exist, the whole thing turns
out to be reversed. How about
00:14:31.67\00:14:37.14
features of the actual data?
Genetic changes are supposed to
00:14:37.17\00:14:43.68
cause evolution. But
lethal mutations which are
00:14:43.71\00:14:46.82
genetic changes
00:14:46.85\00:14:48.18
outnumbered the ordinary ones,
the visible ones by 20 to 1. So
00:14:48.22\00:14:54.22
any time you have a good
mutation you have 20 bad ones.
00:14:54.26\00:14:56.79
So which way are we going?
Here's what Heribert Nilsson
00:14:56.83\00:15:02.76
said: "It is therefore
absolutely impossible to build
00:15:02.80\00:15:06.37
current evolution on mutations
(genetic changes) or on
00:15:06.40\00:15:10.47
recombination's" which are
genetic changes too. How about
00:15:10.51\00:15:14.34
the question of these changes
being very, very small. "By this
00:15:14.38\00:15:19.28
theory..." of small changes...
"innumerable transitional forms
00:15:19.31\00:15:23.28
must have existed." Charles
Darwin says: "The number of
00:15:23.32\00:15:26.79
intermediates must be
truly enormous." In fact, George
00:15:26.82\00:15:31.26
Levine in describing that says:
"In Darwin's world, there are no
00:15:31.29\00:15:34.56
permanent boundaries and
virtually every organism varies
00:15:34.60\00:15:38.17
through time...he sets
everything from rocks to
00:15:38.20\00:15:41.34
barnacles to birds and trees in
motion." In other words, this is
00:15:41.37\00:15:47.98
what Oswald Spengler
says: "There ought to be merely
00:15:48.01\00:15:51.41
'transitional' types..." That's
why he had said this earlier
00:15:51.45\00:15:55.12
statement: "There is no
more conclusive refutation of
00:15:55.15\00:15:59.35
Darwinism than that furnished
by paleontology. There out to be
00:15:59.39\00:16:03.86
merely 'transitional' types,
no definition and no species.
00:16:03.89\00:16:07.26
Instead of this, we find
perfectly stable forms...that
00:16:07.30\00:16:11.10
appear suddenly and at once in
their definitive shape, that do
00:16:11.13\00:16:13.84
not thereafter evolve
towards other adaptations."
00:16:13.87\00:16:19.47
How about the real bits
of information we now have?
00:16:19.51\00:16:22.51
"The fruit fly whose
geographical, biotopical, urban
00:16:22.54\00:16:25.65
and rural genotypes are now
known inside out seems not to
00:16:25.68\00:16:29.68
have changed since the remotest
times." Coelacanths, a type of
00:16:29.72\00:16:33.92
fish, have undergoing little
change in 300 million years.
00:16:33.96\00:16:38.19
Paradoxically, says Richard
Goldsmith, "...all orders or
00:16:38.23\00:16:44.00
families known appear suddenly
and without any apparent
00:16:44.03\00:16:47.74
transition." "New species almost
always appeared suddenly with no
00:16:47.77\00:16:53.27
intermediate links to
ancestors." So the suddenness
00:16:53.31\00:16:57.78
doesn't jive with the gradual
picture that is supposed to have
00:16:57.81\00:17:04.19
shown. How about the fact that
the changes were accumulative?
00:17:04.22\00:17:07.29
Remember we said one
small change write it down for a
00:17:07.32\00:17:10.56
little while another small
change added to that so now we
00:17:10.59\00:17:12.89
have two changes and three and
four and by the time a hundred
00:17:12.93\00:17:15.16
changes come by, come there,
well we have shifted from this
00:17:15.20\00:17:18.90
species to another. But in
1980 there was a very historic
00:17:18.93\00:17:25.67
meeting of evolutionists
in Chicago and Roger Lewin was
00:17:25.71\00:17:31.85
one of the scientists'
reporters. Look at his words:
00:17:31.88\00:17:39.22
"The central question of the
Chicago Conference was whether
00:17:39.25\00:17:42.12
the mechanics underlying micro
evolution..." which is a change
00:17:42.16\00:17:45.73
species just to subspecies...
"can be extrapolated..." or
00:17:45.76\00:17:50.30
pulled out... "to explain the
phenomenon of macroevolution..."
00:17:50.33\00:17:54.54
meaning species, genus,
the family, order, phylum,
00:17:54.57\00:17:57.87
kingdom... "At
00:17:57.91\00:17:59.31
the risk of doing violence
to the positions of some at the
00:17:59.34\00:18:02.98
meeting, the answer can be
given as a clear No." In other
00:18:03.01\00:18:07.98
words changes do not accumulate
and this is echoed by Francisco
00:18:08.02\00:18:11.92
Ayala who is a well known
evolutionist. This is what he
00:18:11.95\00:18:17.89
said: "I am now convinced from
what the Paleontologists..."
00:18:17.93\00:18:22.20
those who study fossils... "say,
that changes do not accumulate."
00:18:22.23\00:18:26.47
How about the claim that
the changes are for the better?
00:18:26.50\00:18:30.61
Genetic changes do not improve
organisms; mutants, or those
00:18:30.64\00:18:37.28
that have those changes, are
deleterious to their carriers.
00:18:37.31\00:18:41.55
In other words, those changes
affect adversely. That's what
00:18:41.58\00:18:44.42
the next statement says:
"Mutations [genetic changes]
00:18:44.45\00:18:47.26
invariably affect adversely."
And Pierre-Paul Grasse says:
00:18:47.29\00:18:53.06
"Mutations do not produce any
kind of evolution." So factwise,
00:18:53.09\00:18:59.73
datawise, we are having a
difficult time. How about the
00:18:59.77\00:19:03.94
whether there is predictive
value. Here's a prediction
00:19:03.97\00:19:06.47
made by Charles Darwin:
00:19:06.51\00:19:07.84
"No organism wholly
soft can be preserved."
00:19:07.88\00:19:12.15
What does the observation show?
This is a recent statement by
00:19:12.18\00:19:16.38
Hagadorn: "Thousands of
jellyfish..." totally soft
00:19:16.42\00:19:22.52
bodied... "many bigger than
a dinner plate are found in at
00:19:22.56\00:19:25.86
lease seven different horizons
sandstone." And so David Raup,
00:19:25.89\00:19:30.13
the dean of the Museum of
Natural History in Chicago said:
00:19:30.17\00:19:33.47
"The predictive (or postdictive)
power of the theory is almost
00:19:33.50\00:19:37.61
nil." Wow! Does it look like the
positive criteria have been met?
00:19:37.64\00:19:44.08
How about the negative criteria?
Ignorance: No good scientific
00:19:44.11\00:19:51.45
theory should say I don't know.
But look at Charles Darwin's own
00:19:51.49\00:19:55.02
words: "Our profound ignorance"
he says: "We know nothing
00:19:55.06\00:19:59.79
about the
00:19:59.83\00:20:01.16
origin or history of any of our
domestic breeds." And yet that
00:20:01.20\00:20:03.97
is the basis of him providing
the theory of evolution, when he
00:20:04.00\00:20:07.57
looked at domestic breeds.
And he says we know nothing. How
00:20:07.60\00:20:11.14
about his next statement:
"Vertebrates have descended from
00:20:11.17\00:20:15.04
an ancient prototype of which
we know nothing." Then how do
00:20:15.08\00:20:20.02
we know they
00:20:20.05\00:20:21.38
we came from them if we know
nothing of that? Errol White
00:20:21.42\00:20:25.05
says this: "Lung fishes have
their origins firmly based in
00:20:25.09\00:20:29.76
nothing...I have often thought
how little I should like to have
00:20:29.79\00:20:34.66
to provide organic evolution
in a court of law." And he's the
00:20:34.70\00:20:38.27
president of the Linnean
Society of London. That's a big
00:20:38.30\00:20:41.87
evolutionary society. Circular
reasoning. What is circular
00:20:41.90\00:20:46.27
reasoning? It's like this: I'm
telling you the truth and when
00:20:46.31\00:20:50.65
you ask me how do I know you are
telling me the truth? My answer
00:20:50.68\00:20:54.15
is because I'm telling you.
In other words, the place of the
00:20:54.18\00:20:57.92
information is also the
place of the confirmation of the
00:20:57.95\00:21:01.66
information. That is
circular reasoning. Look at this
00:21:01.69\00:21:04.93
statement of Charles Darwin:
"Based on the theory of natural
00:21:04.96\00:21:09.10
selection all living species
have been connected with the
00:21:09.13\00:21:12.27
parent-species of each genus."
The connection of parent in
00:21:12.30\00:21:19.04
species to daughter species
is the theory of evolution. So
00:21:19.07\00:21:23.45
based on the theory the Theory
is correct. How about the next
00:21:23.48\00:21:26.65
one? Based on the theory of
descent, these characters have
00:21:26.68\00:21:29.65
been inherited from a common
ancestor." But ancestral factor
00:21:29.68\00:21:33.36
that have gone over to the next
generation is the theory. So
00:21:34.69\00:21:38.89
based on the theory, the theory
is correct. It would be wouldn't
00:21:38.93\00:21:43.67
it? So Ager said: "We land
ourselves immediately in an
00:21:43.70\00:21:49.44
impossible circular argument."
"By making our explanation into
00:21:49.47\00:21:54.71
the definition... "the condition
to be explained, we express not
00:21:54.74\00:21:58.01
scientific hypotheses but
belief... Dogmatic endeavors
00:21:58.05\00:22:01.65
of this kind must eventually
leave the realm of science."
00:22:01.68\00:22:06.25
How about the place of
contradictions? We must not
00:22:06.29\00:22:11.03
state a fact and then contradict
it by another statement. But
00:22:11.06\00:22:16.20
look at these couple of
statements by Charles Darwin:
00:22:16.23\00:22:19.33
"We never know the
exact character of the common
00:22:19.37\00:22:24.84
ancestor." And yet another
statement: "We may feel sure
00:22:24.87\00:22:29.74
that these characters have been
inherited from a common ancestor
00:22:29.78\00:22:33.15
How can you be sure of
what you never know? It is
00:22:33.18\00:22:38.02
contradictory. Here's another
one: "The fossil evidence does
00:22:38.05\00:22:42.59
not afford plain evidence
of gradation." That means small
00:22:42.62\00:22:47.36
changes. And yet another
statement: "Geology..." which is
00:22:47.40\00:22:50.67
the fossil record... "plainly
declares that all species have
00:22:50.70\00:22:54.40
changed in the manner that my
theory requires." I don't think
00:22:54.44\00:22:59.37
facts can plainly declare what
it cannot show. Number four:
00:22:59.41\00:23:07.68
The question of imagination.
These again are the words of
00:23:07.72\00:23:14.32
Charles Darwin. "It is good thus
to try in our imagination to
00:23:14.36\00:23:19.39
give any form some advantage
over another." In other words,
00:23:19.43\00:23:25.03
the advantage is not really seen
it's not really there in the
00:23:25.07\00:23:30.67
data, we must supply that with
our imagination. Here's another
00:23:30.71\00:23:35.34
sentence: "We have only to
suppose their common progenitor"
00:23:35.38\00:23:38.75
Why should you have to suppose?
Because it is not there in the
00:23:38.78\00:23:42.98
data. And one we suppose "then
natural selection will account
00:23:43.02\00:23:47.29
for the infinite
diversity." George Levine in the
00:23:47.32\00:23:52.63
introduction to the Origin
of Species says: "Darwin's
00:23:52.66\00:23:55.46
imagination and his science, his
imaginative science." So a lot
00:23:55.50\00:24:01.04
of that is really imagination
that we are supposed to use...
00:24:01.07\00:24:06.31
but really! Which scientific
theory leans on imagination?
00:24:06.34\00:24:12.01
No, scientific theories set
themselves strongly on data that
00:24:12.05\00:24:17.75
can be collected and that can
be analyzed. So the theory of
00:24:17.79\00:24:22.46
evolution does not have any
of the positive criteria that
00:24:22.49\00:24:25.83
a good scientific theory
should have. On the contrary, it
00:24:25.86\00:24:29.66
possesses all the negative
criteria that a good scientific
00:24:29.70\00:24:33.13
theory should not have. So
it can be proposed as an idea or
00:24:33.17\00:24:37.97
a proposition but not as fact.
So we have already agreed that
00:24:38.01\00:24:44.81
natural selection is a
real phenomenon, but it does not
00:24:44.85\00:24:49.18
produce anything more than
variations and subspecies. We
00:24:49.22\00:24:54.69
have already agreed that
evolution does occur. The word
00:24:54.72\00:24:58.59
evolution, yes it does occur.
But it's a limited process, in
00:24:58.63\00:25:02.70
that species do form variations
and subspecies. But the Theory
00:25:02.73\00:25:08.47
of Evolution, which states that
the changes were unlimited, and
00:25:08.50\00:25:12.84
involved the entire spectrum
of biological classification, is
00:25:12.87\00:25:17.58
highly suspect today. So the
Theory of Evolution really is
00:25:17.61\00:25:23.39
not science. It's actually
history. It's a historical
00:25:23.42\00:25:27.32
construct that is thrust onto
the science of Biology. But it
00:25:27.36\00:25:30.63
so bad history that
nobody would teach it as history
00:25:30.66\00:25:35.20
in a reputable
00:25:35.23\00:25:36.70
school or university. So
the Theory of Evolution fails as
00:25:36.73\00:25:41.50
science flops as history and
for it to rise any higher than
00:25:41.54\00:25:46.11
mere speculation it, here
are the words of Murray Eden:
00:25:46.14\00:25:49.14
It "must await the discovery
of new natural laws, physical,
00:25:49.18\00:25:53.31
physicochemical and biological"
Look at the title of his paper.
00:25:53.35\00:26:00.69
Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism
as a Scientific Theory. So what
00:26:00.72\00:26:09.13
are we looking at? We have
looked at the fundamental claims
00:26:09.16\00:26:16.17
of the theory. We've looked
at whether the theory can really
00:26:16.20\00:26:21.01
meet the criteria of a good
scientific theory and it seems
00:26:21.04\00:26:25.38
to have failed in both.
Therefore the second proposition
00:26:25.41\00:26:30.22
we had made earlier and which
is more reasonable because of
00:26:30.25\00:26:37.19
information we have in our
hands today. And the second
00:26:37.23\00:26:39.66
proposition was this: If
the Theory of Evolution is not
00:26:39.69\00:26:43.87
scientific, then "nature,"
and Its study could endorse the
00:26:43.90\00:26:49.50
claim that God is essential and
does in fact exist. What we are
00:26:49.54\00:26:55.28
saying is that we must go where
the argument leads according to
00:26:55.31\00:27:00.62
Socrates quoted by Plato. We'll
meet again at the next session.
00:27:00.65\00:27:05.52
If you have enjoyed this
presentation with Dr. Subodh
00:27:05.55\00:27:10.79
Pandit and wish to watch more of
this unique 13 part series for
00:27:10.83\00:27:14.96
free online visit the website,
GodFactOrFiction.com. That's
00:27:15.00\00:27:21.00
GodFactOrFiction.com. If
you would like to order this
00:27:21.04\00:27:24.77
fascinating series on DVD it is
now available from White Horse
00:27:24.81\00:27:28.31
Media...
00:27:28.34\00:27:37.32
Dr. Subodh Pandit has written
two eye-opening books entitled
00:27:37.35\00:27:40.86
Come Search With Me: Does God
Really Exist? and Come Search
00:27:40.89\00:27:45.03
With Me: The Weight of Evidence
which further explore the topics
00:27:45.06\00:27:48.40
of evolution, theism,
atheism and religion...
00:27:48.43\00:27:54.04
¤ ¤
00:27:54.07\00:28:22.00