The Vacuous Rhetoric of Evolution

This is a quote from the 1966 Philadelphia symposium, but it is precisely the same sort of argument that any substantive critic of Neo-Darwinism keeps running into from the Neo-Darwinians:

Combinations of different genes occur such that every individual is a unique com­bination, and the selective assay of the value of each random mutation is performed simultaneously in this framework for thou­sands of mutations at a time. The accep­tance of the neo-Darwinian concept of evo­lution appears to be eminently valid on this basis. However, a critical feature is the occurrence of mechanisms for genetic com­bination and recombination, and a major criticism of the neo-Darwinian concept which has been raised at this meeting is premised on the lack of such a mechanism in the initial steps of the evolution of a “sense” sequence of a polypeptide or poly­nucleotide from an initially “nonsense” sequence. It does not, however, seem an ex­treme extrapolation from the known facts of nucleic acid replication and transcription to envisage that combination and recom­bination are inherent features of polynu­cleotides, and the evolution of “sense” sequences then becomes a process of reason­able probability.
– Dr. Alex Fraser, Professor of Genetics, University of California Davis, California

Let’s break the argument down into its component parts:

  1. There is no mechanism. This is readily admitted.
  2. This lack of a mechanism renders the hypothesis impossible.
  3. But it doesn’t strike the Neo-Darwinian true believer to be an extreme extrapolation to imagine what this nonexistent, never-observed mechanism could be if it existed, which it doesn’t.
  4. And if we simply imagine that this nonexistent mechanism existed, then the proposed process that requires it in order to function becomes theoretically possible.
  5. Therefore, the process works as imagined

What sort of philosophical ineptitude and logical retardery is this? Who is stupid enough to accept this as a legitimate argument, let alone an established fact? This isn’t science, reason, logic, or math, it’s just maleducated handwaving combined with wishful thinking. They’re playing poker with Uno cards.

Evolution isn’t science. It isn’t even philosophy or religion. It’s just the vacuous rhetoric of the innumerate, as even its leading champions were forced to admit at the end of the 1966 symposium.

I hope the biologists have shown the physicists that evolutionary theories are not totally vacuous. I think the physicists have shown us that they are certainly as yet very incomplete, and I think we are ready to realize they are very incomplete.
– Dr. C. H. Waddington, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh