RSS

I. SCIENCE E. The Theory of Evolution 2. Mr. Moran

05 Feb

lawrence moran
I interrupt this usually unbiased broadcast to bring to you my recent email conversation with Professor Lawrence Moran. He has written several textbooks about matters of concern to us here, specifically Evolution, and is typical of the scientists who adhere to the theory. You can read more about him and his theories here, here, here, and here. By all means watch the movies with him here. Try to ignore the pompous arrogance. As you will see, his is also typical of the set-in-stone holier-than-thou mentality which pervades this doctrine. If you even question the assumptions of these Evolutionists they assume you ignorant, and they accept very questionable “proofs,” many of which we have already discussed here, as if they are the same type of fact as 2+2=4. In reality, what they believe is more of the nature “there are Elves in Holland.” Only difference is, many have said they have actually SEEN elves…

Despite this prelude I had a lot of respect for Moran, which is why I emailed him and not countless other hacks and second-rate parrot scientists instead. Let me make the conversation speak for itself. I will only correct obvious typos (and there are several) on both our parts, and number my original questions for discussion-referral purposes. Otherwise the conversation will be presented as it occurred.

My first letter to Moran:

_____________________________________________
Mr. Moran

Please bear with an aging but determined student of the Evolution v Creation controversy. My training is in Philosophy. After much research I am not satisfied with the Origin of Man I have been offered by science. I have some questions:

(1)Would not the Big Bang, the Primordial Slime, Evolution, etc., insofar as they are theories, be metaphysical speculation and not science?

(2)Why do these theories help answer the questions about the Origin of the Universe, of Life or of Man?

(3)Does understanding a process mean the same as understanding the source?

(4)Insofar as these things are all theoretical science, why are they treated as practical scientific facts? Whence came the elevation, I thought this died out with the rejection of the Scholastics?

(5)Would a protobiont be nevertheless living? How can we get organic matter, of which it supposedly composed, without life?

(6)What do we gain by renaming Atlas “gravity”? Life “genetic transference and mutation”?

(7)Do you trust the instruments, the radiocarbon et.al. dating companies making big claims and big money for the lease of their equipment?

(8)Do you really buy the other procedures used to measure the macrosphere?

(9)What practical use have we gained by these theories and the billions spent researching them?

(10)Why might Andromeda not still be just a Supernova(e.g.)?

(11)Have we figured out yet how the cell, the genetics and the organs that form the organism works, really?

(12)Might not Primordial Eve had originated in Asia and moved to Africa?

(13)Does not the uncertainty principle still hold true? (14)One flaw kills the theory?

I have no axe to grind. I am seeking answers, and my faith in science is wavering. I use this word “faith” a bit facetiously but purposefully in the light of Science’s current status.

Any reply would be delightful, because unexpected.

Say hello to my old friend [……. ……….] if you know him for me.

Best regards,

Angelo Caiazzo
___________________________________________________

As you can see, in essence I have asked Moran 14 questions. Luckily I received a reply, as follows. Note for ease of following along: my quoted words have > in front of them.

___________________________________________________

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Angelo wrote:> Mr. Moran,

>[…] Would not the Big Bang, the Primordial Slime, Evolution, etc., insofar
> as they are theories, be metaphysical speculation and not science?

Nope. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the universe
arose in a Big Bang and that life evolved. The “theoretical” part of
evolution is explaining how it happened. Theories in science are,
by definition, so well supported by facts that they are provisionally
accepted as true.

> Why do these theories help answer the questions about the Origin of the
> Universe, of Life or of Man? Does understanding a process mean the same
> as understanding the source?

Yes.

> Insofar as these things are all theoretical science, why are they
> treated as practical scientific facts? Whence came the elevation, I
> thought this died out with the rejection of the Scholastics?

Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that fact.

> Would a protobiont be nevertheless living? How can
> we get organic matter, of which it supposedly composed, without life?

We don’t know exactly how it happened.

> What do we gain by renaming Atlas
> “gravity”? Life “genetic transference and mutation”?

I don’t know.

> Do you trust the instruments, the radiocarbon et.al. dating companies
> making big claims and big money for the lease of their equipment? Do you
> really buy the red shift and other procedures used to measure the
> macrosphere?

Yes I do.

If you don’t “trust” this data then you’d better be prepared to deal with
the consequences. What your lack of “trust” means is that you think
scientists are stupid and naive. In that case you’d be wise not to “trust”
anything that comes out of scientific discoveries.

Don’t use a cell phone or a computer and never, never, trust a doctor if
you have cancer.

Don’t you see how silly it is to think like that?

> What practical use have we gained by these theories
> and the billions spent researching them?

Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

> Why might Andromeda not still be just a Supernova
> (e.g.)?

What?

> Have we figured out yet how the cell, the genetics and the organs that
> form the organism works, really?

Yes we have.

> Might not Primordial Eve had originated in Asia and moved to Africa?

Yes, that a possibility.

> Does not the uncertainty principle still hold true? One flaw kills the theory?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is correct.

It is not true that “one flaw kills a theory.” That’s not how science
works.

Best,

Larry Moran

_______________________________________________

Can you sense a tone? Anyway my questions to him, and his answers, were:

1)Would not the Big Bang, the Primordial Slime, Evolution, etc., insofar as they are theories, be metaphysical speculation and not science?

“Nope. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the universe
arose in a Big Bang and that life evolved. The “theoretical” part of
evolution is explaining how it happened. Theories in science are,
by definition, so well supported by facts that they are provisionally
accepted as true.”

What we get here are claims that proof exists, but no proof. No direction of where to find the proof, no discussion of the metaphysical accusation. Simply an appeal to authority as defense. What were I to say that right now Moran has his foot in his mouth, and that he is chewing his toenails, because proof exists, because “by definition theories in science are provisionally accepted as true”? This question has not been answered.

(2)Why do these theories help answer the questions about the Origin of the Universe, of Life or of Man?

Unanswered. Moran chose to answer the second question of that paragraph instead.

(3)Does understanding a process mean the same as understanding the source?

His answer: “Yes”. Again no reason or support.

(4)Insofar as these things are all theoretical science, why are they treated as practical scientific facts? Whence came the elevation, I thought this died out with the rejection of the Scholastics

His answer: “Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that fact.”

Is this an answer? Does saying it is so make it so? Did he really think I would hear this and just say “Oh OK”?

(5)Would a protobiont be nevertheless living? How can we get organic matter, of which it supposedly composed, without life?

His answer: “We don’t know exactly how it happened.“. He doesn’t know, but he accepts the science built on this premise nonetheless.

(6) What do we gain by renaming Atlas “gravity”? Life “genetic transference and mutation”?

His answer: “I don’t know”. I am glad I found an expert here.

(7)Do you trust the instruments, the radiocarbon et.al. dating companies making big claims and big money for the lease of their equipment?

His answer: “Yes”. Mr. Moran is busy, let’s hope, and hasn’t the time to elaborate.

(8)Do you really buy the red shift and other procedures used to measure the macrosphere?

His answer: “Yes I do” (with elaboration). Finally we get some communication, but only Moran ‘s attack assumption that because I question the truths, aims, and usefulness of his theoretical science, that I reject therefore practical science like technology.As we have discussed the important differences between the two already we need not dwell longer on this right now.

(9)What practical use have we gained by these theories and the billions spent researching them?

His answer: “Knowledge is better than ignorance.” Really you say?

(10)Why might Andromeda not still be just a Supernova(e.g.)?

His answer: “What?” Let’s hope he just doesn’t get the relevance rather than be ignorant of history.

(11)Have we figured out yet how the cell, the genetics and the organs that form the organism works, really?

His answer: “Yes we have.” No elaboration.

(12)Might not Primordial Eve had originated in Asia and moved to Africa?

His answer: “Yes.” Interesting huh?

(13)Does not the uncertainty principle still hold true? (14)One flaw kills the theory?

His answer: “The Uncertainty Principle is correct.” But he objects that this principle does not also contain the stipulation that one flaw kills the theory.

While I was happy to have received a response, begrudging as it was, I just had to follow up these questions. Here, Moran’s words are italicized.

________________________________________

Larry, Thank you for the reply.I’d just like to follow up on a couple of things. I’ll understand if you are busy which it appears you stay.

re.
>Nope. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the universe arose in a Big Bang and that life evolved.

I understand your position which is why I wrote to you specifically. I have heard this many times before about the evidence. But I look at the “evidence” and I don’t see it, I am just always told it is there, accept it. There is one exception, and that is I do believe the evidence for species changing, and the possible interbreeding of related species. When I question the evidence for Evolution, it is its theory that all species, including man, arose from this process. Being that I see no real evidence of this, it is metaphysics. I am reminded of Professor Flourens, who the normally level-headed TH Huxley took unjustifiably to the cleaners in his paper handling of the Criticisms of Darwinism. Flourens said “Natural Selection is merely Nature, it is how it works, and explains nothing“. As far as the Big Bang goes, the only proof I’ve seen is that which insists the Universe is expanding. This, I believe can be doubted, for several reasons. What if the Universe pulses, for instance in and out at intervals?

>The “theoretical” part of evolution is explaining how it happened. Theories in science are, by definition, so well supported by facts that they are provisionally accepted as true.

Once again, that plethora of evidence called such, but which really might not be. In fact one could suggest that the evidence has been made to fit the theory.

[regarding my question: “Why do these theories help answer the questions about the Origin of the Universe, of Life or of Man? Does understanding a process mean the same s understanding the source?]

>Yes.

Oh so if you understand how gravity works you understand where it comes from, its Origin (my concern)? If you understand how electricity travels, you have understood electricity? Because you know how to pump gas in your car to make it run means you know therefore about combustion and the properties of gasoline? I think this is logically unacceptable, and it bothers my common sense too.

>Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that fact.

So you and many say. But because someone says so isn’t really good enough is it? After all, they used to say the Earth is flat, as a fact, by all their measurements and science. I’ll ask you this: why do you believe our Sun itself is hot? What is your evidence? No instrument we have can withstand the heat to enter the surface and see. I am not denying this hot Sun, I am questioning the authority for your beliefs.

[regarding my question: Would a protobiont be nevertheless living? How can we get organic matter, of which it supposedly composed, without life?]

>We don’t know exactly how it happened.

I was hoping you could answer that one for me.

[regarding my question: What do we gain by renaming Atlas “gravity”? Life “genetic transference and mutation”?]

>I don’t know.

Nothing. We gain zero. We rename Atlas gravity, and say look, we have a great discovery..maybe a Nobel Prize!

[Regarding trusting our instruments and measuring devices]

>Yes I do.

>If you don’t “trust” this data then you’d better be prepared to deal with
>the consequences. What your lack of “trust” means is that you think
>scientists are stupid and naive. In that case you’d be wise not to “trust”
>anything that comes out of scientific discoveries.

That Sir I do not. My opinion about Theoretical Science is not high. I understand many want to do well, it’s just people get too eager to follow these days, it is too easy to parrot what we have heard rather than see for ourselves. Have you ever seen an object being dated in one of those machines? Have you ever asked yourself why we calculate the return of isotopes to stable states by use of the Half-Life? Why not date it’s deterioration with a number of flat years? Because of limitations. Have you ever heard of Velikovsky, maybe some folks prior who insist that our even assuming that the environment and atmosphere was millenia ago as it is today is a metaphysical proposition? Is it not? How could this possibly be proven? Have you ever looked at the data and how millions upon millions and now billions upon billions of miles and years vary from one expert to the next, and all of them relying on data that, really, is very speculative? In other words, have you ever really considered the evidence in itself?

Mr. Moran, what if I sent you a report from a very respected European University which presents evidence that the Universe is not expanding? Would you look at it? Would you ask to see how the numbers were derived, or is “4 out of 5 dentists surveyed” good enough for you? I don’t mean you specifically, maybe you would do the research. The point is, what is your authority? Who or what do YOU trust?

Like you, mine has always been science, believe me. Since I retook-up this subject a few years ago what I have witnessed has NOT been pretty, and only rarely, science. There has been in my opinion rampant disregard of Kant, Aristotle, Newton, hell all the famous scientific theorists of history, who delineate pretty clearly the difference between speculation (theory, metaphysics, religion, myth) and science (repeatability, visual proof, practical benefit and use, human advancement, honest unbiased experimentation and analysis of results, etc.)  Now to answer your questions, and I like the way you ask them. I have heard this argument before. But realize Edison was both a theorist, or metaphysician (his idea or dream of the light bulb) and a practical scientist (the light bulb).

>Don’t use a cell phone or a computer and never, never, trust a doctor if
>you have cancer.

I quit using my cell phone and frankly I think Cancer is another name for Death; some evidence says we are all born with it, only unable to resist as we age and our immunity gets occupied with other things. […]Our lifespans are that of Socrates. WE are no better 3000 years later than a well-fed, shoeless, vaccine-less Greek. Can you deny this? Now why think the Big Bang (I mean…really!?) is any better than, oh, Parabrahm manifesting everything? Is it the religion? Does it bother us so much that we have to distort science and history to refute it? That’s not MY bag, this religion of any kind, but don’t you see if you rename Parabrahm, or YWH, or King Kong Creator, “Big Bang” you have not solved a thing? Why Bang rather no Bang? Cannot the “saved” ones, and the other pseudo-religionists, merely ask you the Origin of the Bang, or the Stuff which came out of the Bang? Well, to your question…

In my case I do have a computer, several, and I have a doctor, whom I trust as a man, but whose science, he knows, I always question. He in fact tells me about a lot of uncertainty [in his field] about which many are not aware. But what I cannot understand is, why does my having a computer or a doctor to patch me up have a thing to do with, or in any way justify, the Big Bang, Evolution, or the Primordial Slime? Are you claiming that these practical scientific efforts, like my CD player, and my refrigerator, and bubble gum, would not exist without these theories? Now how silly does THAT sound?

>Don’t you see how silly it is to think like that?

No, I do not. I do not trust those theories. I trust my CD player will work…for a time. That doesn’t mean I therefore might understand better why there is a scale of tones, or cadence, or meter…or even the price of disks. In fact, what HAVE these theories done for us poor common men?

[regarding my question: What practical use have we gained by these theories
and the billions spent researching them?

>Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

LOL. Surely, agreed. Are you sure that is what we have gained with these theories, or are we just shining our own shoes? Probability is all I personally require out of good science, pragmatism, obviously I don’t expect episteme! But alas, what knowledge is it? Ever seen a “skull” of a prehuman…before reconstruction by the artists? I mean the 1/4 of a jaw, maybe upper mandible, maybe 1/8 of the cranium, which is our ancestor? Between the apes we STILL know, and the varieties of skull types and jaw projections we STILL have, these things we like to think as hybrids and links are really just varieties of man or ape. I believe, and have evidence to show, as others before me have shown, that before Neanderthals everything claimed so far to be human (scanty lot it is) was not human at all. By the same evidence I can show that the Neanderthal (by far the most evidence we have of prehistoric man are Neanderthals), is but a variety of Homo Sapiens, still existent to this day. That we have evolved this far cannot be due to Evolution…

[regarding my question: Why might Andromeda not still be just a Supernova (e.g.)?]

>What?

It has something to do with this all. Before I think it was 1942 or 3 I understand Andromeda, like every other celestial object, was within the Milky Way galaxy. Consequently, before that time, Andromeda was considered a supernova. I ask because if our ways of measuring distance are wrong (which I have reason to believe, are), everything very well STILL might be within the Milky Way.

[regarding my question: Have we figured out yet how the cell, the genetics and the organs that form the organism works, really?]

>Yes we have.

Amazing.

[omitting our agreement about Primordial Eve]

[regarding my question: Does not the uncertainty principle still hold true? One flaw kills the theory?]

>The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is correct.

>It is not true that “one flaw kills a theory.” That’s not how science
>works.

That’s how I read the theory. Maybe I will have to read it again. For pragmatic use, certainly not, and so for practical science I agree. But for theory, if a theory can withstand the flaw, say as an exception, then that flaw must be incorporated or accounted for by the theory, which would be, a new theory.

Again Larry, thanks for the Chronos, I have a lot of respect for you.

AC

____________________________________

Here is his probably final response. I will leave it at that and let you come to your own conclusions of the conversation between this common man and one of the premier scientists of the world regarding biological Evolution.
____________________________________
“…[quoted material omitted]
I’m sorry but I can’t deal with your problem.Think about what you’re saying. You’re saying that scientists are really
stupid and they are completely wrong about evidence for evolution.

There are plenty of textbooks on evolution that describe the evidence and
there are several hundred thousand scientific papers as well. If you
choose not to read them then that’s your problem but don’t pretend that
they don’t exist. That’s silly.

Larry Moran

______________________________________
And my probably final response:
______________________________________
“Yeah did you think I would make any of these statements before reading the textbooks, including yours? Before looking at the science? That I would waste your time this way?Your message does not come unexpected. But the only person who thinks anyone is stupid, apparently, is you.Typical holier-than-thou bullshit generated by your ilk.Thanks for you precious time, have fun living your fairy tale, it will all topple soon.

AC”

________________________________
They do say it is about survival of the fittest, do they not?
Advertisements
 

Tags: , , ,

2 responses to “I. SCIENCE E. The Theory of Evolution 2. Mr. Moran

  1. Robert Clifton

    October 21, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Basically your correspondence with Moran and his reply about EVE supports my theory that man could have originated in Europe or Asia and walked south into Africa..thanks for the info
    I enjoy your work..r.f. Clifton

     
  2. truthopia

    October 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Maybe…maybe not.

    AC

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: