Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

nemonemini at nemonemini at
Mon Dec 3 12:35:39 MST 2001

And exactly what would you require for "real proof?"

Best not to quibble here. The Darwin debate has gone on too long and
I am sick of it, and the Darwinists will lose it here. Proof means
proof, and the Darwinists don't have, because it may be impossible to
obtain, making the wish to insist on a lower standard very strong.
We have no proof of Darwin's theory for language, and the rest.

Questions of proof in evolution are a difficult subject. We operate
on the hope that we can infer, 'how things happened'. But we must
always remind ourselves that we are given no promise our inferences
will stand up. And these inferences can be found wanting in later
work, calling on us to refine our standards of proof and evidence.
That is the case with Darwin's theory.
Proof? How about documenting the periods, places, and generational
sequences of the particular men-species in a sequence showing their
gradual stages of the evolution of language at whatever level of time
that requires, probably at the level of generations-centuries.
That would be proof. And there is no such proof.
And I am under no obligation to call speculation science. And while
those who wish to believe may do so, they may not require others to
believe it by calling it science.
And the worst has happened. We suspect now the whole thing is utterly
partial and false.

This message was sent by Cosmiverse.
Get Your Free Email Account Today!
Join us Today as a Digital Passenger aboard
Cosmic Voyage 2000 ( )!

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list