home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

 

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer's


 

An Investigation of the 'Cambrian Explosion'

 

“[As to] why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods before the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1859

False Solutions
by the
Darwin Lobby

 
 

return to "Evolution" main-page

 

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

 

Phyla: the unexpected and precipitous rise of body types 

 

The fossil evidence indicates a veritable explosion of body types presenting themselves within a very narrow window of geological time. Darwin’s gradualism predicted otherwise. Can this outsized surfeit of phylic manifestation be accounted for by “magic oxygen”? (charts are from the documentary “Darwin’s Dilemma”)

 

 

With the release of the 2009 documentary Darwin’s Dilemma, the problem so clearly laid out, the Darwin Lobby sought some means to contain what they rightfully viewed as a public relations disaster.

Their answer to the “Cambrian problem” took the form of what has been called “magic oxygen.” The Darwinists suddenly proclaimed the arrival of “new evidence” which would vindicate gradualism in the face of the devastating blow of the “Cambrian Big Bang.”

It was now posited that oxygen levels has become more plentiful during the geological era in question, and that this plenitude served as proximate cause to the mammoth “explosion” of new phyla upon the Earth.

but, assertion is not evidence

As Dr. Meyer’s points out, they offer no rationale, no causal linkage, demonstrating that “magic oxygen” has any power to pick up the pace of evolution. Not only this, but evolution expressing itself in terms of huge numbers of never-seen-before body types! - "magic oxygen", indeed.

No one would believe this kind of weak argument, unless there were a vested interest to believe it.

how the leopard got its spots and how the Cambrian explosion came to be

Assertions without evidence make the "magic oxygen" a new candidate for Kipling's "just so" stories: "Yes, children, it happened just so, this is how the leopard got its spots and how the Cambrian phyla came to be."

In the “clear thinking” writing, we discussed certain dishonest debating tactics:

when the law and the facts do not support your case, then pound the table and vilify the opposing attorney

 

The following proverb, sometimes called “The Last Resort Rule,” was not taught in Civil Procedure class when I was in law school; however, some attorneys do report of professors who mentioned it.

There are different versions of the aphorism, but it goes something like this:

“If you have a case where the law is clearly on your side, but the facts and justice seem to be against you,” advised an old lawyer to a young attorney, “urge upon the jury the vast importance of sustaining the law."

"On the other hand," the old lawyer continued, "if the law is against you, or doubtful, and the facts show that your case is founded in justice, insist that justice be done though the heavens fall."

“But,” asked the young man, “how shall I manage a case where both the law and the facts are dead against me?”

“In that situation,” replied the old lawyer, “talk around it - and, the worse it is, the harder you pound the table.”

a cool and cunning calculation portrayed as shocking outrage

Some variants of this sophistry conclude with, not just pounding the table but, attacking the opposing counsel, or yelling with outrage, or even shouting at the jury.

It's all cool calculation. In other words, when the law and the facts are not on your side – and if you lack any semblance of scruple -- you need to do something fast to divert attention from the poverty and lack of substance of your defense; you need to create a scene, manufacture some theatrical charade of moral outrage, produce your own little one-person “mob rule” incident in order to bully your way into a better tactical position – that is, if you want to have any chance of winning your case, and, again, if you lack any sense of moral rectitude and respect for the rule of law.

This article on “Clear Thinking” will help us better understand the disingenuities, the attempts to divert attention from the law and the facts by “pounding tables” and “vilifying opposing attorneys.”

The most egregious example of “pounding the table” and “vilifying the opposing attorney” is that of making the bold-faced claim that your opponent is guilty of the very crime that you are committing. It's the perfect smoke-screen for malfeasance.

 

When the debate, along with the facts of the case, are not going your way, and if you're unscrupulous, then you simply make things up to grab attention, to break the momentum of the opposing side.

But then there's also this:

Clear-thinking violation #6: Fastening on trivial error in an opponent's argument, making much of it, and then, in this inconsequential victory, suggesting that the rival has been defeated on the main question.

The trivial item of "magic oxygen" is now paraded before us as the ripest wisdom, totally dispositive and apodictic to the Cambrian question. Like rogue politicians who've just lost an election, instead of acknowledging defeat, they declare victory and act as if they've won.

But even if "magic oxygen" had a grain merit, for which there's no evidence, it could never overturn the major problem they face -- which is, gradualism cannot surmount the issue of new protein production. See the earlier articles on "not enough time." But, of course, the Darwin Lobby makes no mention of the "protein" issue -- they're way too busy taking a victory lap.

All this makes Newton turn in his grave:

'hypotheses non fingo'

Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727) vigorously denied the validity of the deductive method. Essentially, he thought it was nonsense (because it was being misused), an antipathy expressed in his oft-quoted phrase, (Latin) “Hypotheses non fingo” – translated as, “I feign” or “contrive” or “construct no hypotheses”; that is, no hypotheses should be entertained unsupported by induction, a rigorous fact-gathering process.

To do otherwise, he would assert, invites personal prejudice, private agendas, kangaroo courts, and hobby-horse riding. And those who go down this road are not scientists but politicians, or maybe religionists of a new faith.

A good deal of materialistic science, especially when it attempts to refute consciousness-based reality or the evidence for the afterlife, falls under the category of "hyptheses non fingo."

It's just made up. They say whatever they want to say and, with a wink, call it science. There's nothing behind their assertions. "Magic oxygen" and the "many worlds" theory in quantum mechanics are prime examples. These are political statements, not science.

These are not propositions that an objective, disinterested mind would accept; the fact that they are accepted, and lauded, tells us there's something really wrong going on here.

 

 

Editor's last word:

And also review Dr. Meyer's response to this "last resort rule" by the vanquished attorney.