I’ll log here some extracts and the appropriate comments.
What about Darwinism? There was an evil anti-Soviet joke: « Why is Marx a great scientist? Because he has a big beard. » A look at the photograph of Darwin […] could convince anyone that Darwin’s beard was not smaller than that of Marx, and hence he was a scientist through and through, and whatever he said was purely scientific,[…]
Now, after reading this I’ll take more care of my beard. I planned to spend a few minutes this afternoon to shorten it. No way sir, I would like to be as scientific as possible…
But let’s look at Darwin regardless of his scientific beard. In 1828, the 19-year-old Charles Darwin began to study at Christ’s College, Cambridge, from which he graduated in 1831 and went for a six-year voyage on the HMS Beagle. A clergyman? Of course!
Damn! I suppose that, as I was raised in a catholic school, I’m also a clergyman! That’s evolution of religion: atheist clergymens, that’s it.
Genetics (the word appeared in 1906) was unknown to Darwin, who did not understand that when a giraffe was born with a somewhat longer neck, this variation had to become genetic in order to be inherited by the giraffe’s progeny.
And genetics are unknown to Lev Navrozov who almost a hundred year after the word appeared doesn’t know that when a giraffe is born with a a somewhat longer neck, the variation is already genetic! The school where Lev studied isn’t an example to follow, or maybe Lev was a bad student. Not enough data to decide…
Evolution implies development from the simplest to the most complex.
That seems to be acknowledged by a lot of people as true. But Evolution just implies changes; for parasites, sometimes, evolution runs from complex to the simplest.
The more evolved, developed, sophisticated an organism is, the more it is vulnerable, demanding, exigent – and hence less fit for survival.
Now, that’s false, but it’s a little bit more complicated to understand why. So I wouldn’t expect such a bad student (as I suspect, more and more) as Lev Navrozov to be able to understand that by himself. I’ll try to help him. If you place a human individual alone in a prebiotic environment chances of survival can’t exist. But human’s didn’t appeared in a prebiotic environment! Natural selection filter absurdities quite fast. But humans, despite their complexity, are quite robust and fit for survival. At a degree that some people even think that they couldn’t exist if not designed by a superior intelligence 😉
Lev Navrozov should make his mind once for all, and that’s quite easy: are humans he more evolved, developed, sophisticated organisms around, and hence the more vulnerable, demanding, exigent and less fit for survival? If so either Darwin was right of the Designer is of the Idiot species. And Lev Navrozov’s paper’s title should be « Darwinism or Idiot Design », or even « Idiot Writer talking about Darwinism, which he ignores, and Intelligence Design, presenting it as Idiot Design ». 😀
When Henri Bergson (Nobel Prize in 1927) published his « L’Évolution Creátrice » in 1907 […] [he] made mincemeat out of Darwinism. But in the argument in the United States about a century later it does not seem that any worshiper of Darwin has ever heard of Bergson.
Now, I’m not in the USA, and I’m not any kind of Darwin’s worshiper, but I do know that Bergon’s arguments are quite easy to take down! And Lev Navrozov education seems to have stopped around 1906-1907.
Lev Navrozov display a fabulous mauvaise foi, the kind I admire! Look at that:
True, Lemonick admits that there is « a tiny [!] handful [!] of actual [!] scientists who back ID. » But « the vast [!] majority [!] of biologists say nonsense. » Perhaps Time magazine should take a vote among biologists and thus establish once and for all that Darwinism is the Science beyond all controversy (which is religious nonsense and hence to be kept from public schools). The only trouble is that if scientific issues were decided by majorities, we would still think that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that Einstein was an insane clerk in a patent office
- Time magazine should take a vote among biologists
- if scientific issues were decided by majorities
A perfect example of a sophism! Of great quality! At this point Lev Navrozov you surprised me. Let’s go dissect this beautiful example of sophism.
First the problem:
True, Lemonick admits that there is « a tiny [!] handful [!] of actual [!] scientists who back ID. » But « the vast [!] majority [!] of biologists say nonsense. »
As the argument isn’t spoken emphasis is added by edition, and one can fill the astonishment « [!] » of Lev in front of this phrase. He didn’t expect things to be that way.
Then the reasonable solution:
Perhaps Time magazine should take a vote among biologists and thus establish once and for all that Darwinism is the Science beyond all controversy
Hey, Lev propose a solution. But doing so, he doesnt’ forget to instill a few drops of poison. He doesn’t ask to establish if Darwinism is the generally and actually accepted theory, whuch would be fair, but wouldn’t serve the propose of a sophism. The demand is to : establish once and for all that Darwinism is the Science beyond all controversy, as if any reasonable scientist could answer that stupid question, making Darwinism irrefutable and thus non-scientific. Great formulation from Lev to come to a dead end.
Finaly the [il]logical conclusion:
The only trouble is that if scientific issues were decided by majorities, we would still think that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that Einstein was an insane clerk in a patent office
Lets point to the missing qualification first. The pool was to be among biologists, but the qualification is lost here: « if scientific issues were decided by majorities ». Just because scientific issues are decided by the majority of educated people. Not just educated, but trained in the particular field the question addresses. Lev drops the qualification and make the decision depend from the opinion of uneducated people, thus making it subject to controversies from anybody. Great job but that’s evil Lev to distort logics that way!
Once the sophism presented, it is necessary to cement it. Two examples of the possible catastrophes are presented, offered to be used when the sophism will propagate as a meme or to try to convince you if you aren’t on Lev’s side by now. The first one is relatively honest: we would still think that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The only problem is that it took a majority of astronomers to think that the Earth was revolving around the Sun, before, in front of evidence, even uneducated people accepted the fact. Actually who would believe otherwise? Lev implicitly states that if you aren’t already on his side then you are of the idiots kind who « would still think that the Sun revolved around the Earth« ; but Lev is a very nice person and he includes the « we » at the beginning of the sentence, including you in his camp of reasonable people.
The second example would be « too much » if a dramatic coloratura wasn’t given. Look at that beauty:
The only trouble is that if scientific issues were decided by majorities, we would still think […] that Einstein was an insane clerk in a patent office
Actualy Einstein was a clerk in a patent office. But what majority thought that he was insane? None. At the time there was a tiny minority of the world populations that was aware of the existence of some clerk in a patent office named Albert Einstein. But using a quite known personality and implicitly making the assumption that if you think otherwise then him [Lev], it’s just if you think that Albert was an « insane clerk » is the last movement to attract you in his camp.
- If you think that a majority of biologists support Darwinism is as if you think Einstein was an insane clerk
- If you think that Darwinism is the Science beyond all controversy is as if you think the the Sun evolves around Earth. etc.
Now, that is expected probably from uneducated people to construct by simplification such memes and spread them around. People that don’t think that the Sun evolves around Earth for example, a vast majority of people. To whom Lev Navrozov say « if you aren’t stupid you should think like me », meaning (?) « if you are enough stupid you will accept my ideas ».
Lev Navrozov, you have produced a quite nice sophism here, but you are a bad boy trying to fool people! And probably yourself as well.