An article about how a certain social imagination is wrong and another is right based on the 'politics' of evolution shows the lengths some will go to in order to gain social favor. Yes, the agenda of the article was clearly politically motivated and the title was the key- "How to Slam Dunk Creationists". What it should have read was - "How to be on the right side of politics... in order to get ahead... a kind of social imagination evolution!"
Firstly, Darwinian evolution... if we are talking about how a blob became an living microbe which then became a kind of fish which suddenly left a suitable environment as in where a fish belongs... in the water, and thus decided or was inspired to climb of its near perfect environment in order to become something and so on, is the truth of all reality, is not the result of clear evidence. There are No transitional forms!
All of that evolution is ... is just man's theory about life and theory lives in the social imagination... which means it is no more than an agreed upon perception of what is and is not by a group of people in a specified institution to which not all people are accepted at and or ever likely to be; and that has only to do with affluence and money not competency which would be evolutionary.
But putting down those in higher education isn't my business; after all, I have a PhD in Sociology. But, I can tell you that as a sociologist, agreement reality is all science is and can ever be. Science is not outside of man's social imagination nor can it ever be. Secondly, we can observe a species adapting to an environment.
We find similarities because of their living and being in a similar environment over time where certain attributes work well making adaptation to the surroundings more suitable, comfortable and sustainable. This is does not however indicate a complete and total evolution of a species into another kind. As for proof of that, there are a number of fish that were around 300 million years ago and they still are... unchanged. That means that they are the same now and then.
How are those fish still possible (in the form there were and still are) if everything has been evolving for millions of years? For evolution to be even remotely a discussion about reality (which is only social), one has to first accept the idea that evolution moves as a whole since environment is certainly part of reality and its processes.
Environment has to be conducive to cause change or accept changes made by the species as they pertain to the species in that given environment. Now, one can make the argument that some stay and some go... but those that stay and go also can dramatically change the environment so once again, evolution has to move a solid whole and not 'spotty' examples which are by the way hypothetical at best!
And, who was Charles Darwin anyway? He was the son of a high society doctor. He is described by Britannica as an affable country gentleman. Darwin at first shocked religious Victorian society by suggesting (SUGGESTING is the word used by Britannica /NOT PROVING) that animals and humans shared a common ancestry.
However, his nonreligious biology APPEALED TO THE RISING CLASS of professional scientists, and by the time of his death evolutionary imagery had spread through all of science, literature, and politics. Wow, there it is people. And, it was called evolutionary imagery! Just as I said above. Agreement reality through social imagination of elites who gain from this kind of agenda on the political platform.
Again, Darwin was the son of a high society doctor and considered a 'wastrel' by his own father! How despicably duped we have been all these years. Darwin was as suggested above, the product of a certain group of people and so was his so-called theory. A desperate attempt to win socio-politcal favor.
What about Darwin's beliefs... he claimed to be an agnostic. Its likely that he would take such a stand given what is now known about his social circles; such a position regarding faith in a creator would allow him to remain comfortable in that circle and gain 'safe' attention with his illogical perception acquired in an ill (illite/elite) social imagination.
Archaeopteryx is Not a transitional form! It is the fossil of an extinct bird. It simply could not be a transitional form. The design of a bird is one for flight. It has to be in its complete form to lift off and soar. The fossil of the bird found in Europe was pieced together and put forward as such by elite professionals who wanted to simply maintain their institutional positions and promote their illite/elite world view.
In short, the thesis of bird evolution is not consistent with biological or paleontological evidence, but is a fictitious, unrealistic claim stemming from Darwinist (elitist) preconceptions. The subject of bird evolution, which some experts speak of as if it were scientific fact, is a myth kept alive for vain elitist political reasons.
* Source of article ~ https://www.yahoo.com/news/slam-dunk-creationists-comes-theory-134405757.html
No comments :
Post a Comment