Title Author Date

The meek inherit the Earth? Holland, Andy Jan 07, 2005

If one puts forth a theory of natural selection or "survival of the fittest", then what scientific criteria apply to prove or disprove the theory? What is the science in measurable terms, of the theory?

When Newton set about his laws of motion, he stated that his equations worked in an inertial system. An inertial system is formally defined as a system in which the laws of motion work (according to Newton).

There are inertial systems, this is provable - it is also good science. There are non-inertial systems, and sometimes mappings to and from. But the theory of the laws of motion actually relate measurable quantities. They make verifiable and testable predictions. They also have defined limits of applicability.

In no way does Newton put forth that such a theory explains anything universal or grand. (Note that force being defined as a change of momentum with respect to time is formally relativity agnostic - and this was intentional on the part of Newton).

So what is the scientific portion of the "theory" of Darwinian evolution, and how is it tested and what predictions does it make? What are its conditions, boundaries, and limits of applicability?

I would note "the meek inherit the Earth", with meek being defined in measurable scientific terms (size, strength, bone, muscle, mass) - does seem to be verifiable against the fossil record. It also appears to be true - relatively meek species have indeed inherited the Earth. This is counter-intuitive but so is General Relativity. It also makes a prediction, the meek shall inherit the Earth. This is verifiable (history as well as the fossil record).

This concept of the meek inheriting the Earth, put forth by Jesus, seems much more "scientific" to me than the Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection". The latter Darwinian terms are more philosophical because they are not defined (unless one wants to use meek for fit and preferred selection).

Also, the gradual advancement of species to man was proposed in a book curiously entitled, "On the Origin of Man", written by St. Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth Century.

In another book called, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", St. Gregory also makes similar statements regarding the ascent of man from the universe. Augustine also had a gradual theory of evolution of sorts based on seeds (DNA - Logos, the Word).

It seems to me that with Darwin there is both "nothing new under the sun" and not much a "scientific" theory.

Title Author Date

The meek inherit the Earth? TalkReason , Jan 07, 2005

We are posting the letter from Andy Holland (which obviously needs not to be replied to) as
one demonstration of the level of critique we sometimes encounter. TR is not a textbook of evolution theory of which Holland seems to have a very nebulous image. Hopefully there is a library not far from Holland's whereabouts and it would be advisable for Holland to spend some time there before discussing evolution.

TalkReason administration

Title Author Date

The meek inherit the Earth? Gaudia, Gil Jan 17, 2005

I don't see how Andy Holland can write a critique of Darwinian evolution, since it is obvious from his semantics and syntax that his cerebral cortex has barely developed beyond the level of his Biblical forebears. It is one thing to employ and string together phrases like "formally relativity agnostic" and "inertial systems", and quite another to comprehend and explain them. It appears that he fails on both counts, and I would suggest to him that he could spend his time more productively by reading his Bible for explanations of "the gradual advancement of species to man". He would find that it makes as much sense as he does.