I will present my views on a variety of subjects. Chief among them is my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and my paper published in Rivista di Biologia is now available here for further discussion.

You will notice that I do not use the usual format of constantly introducing new threads. I find that six threads serve to satisfy both my interests and my purposes. This format serves to be a sort of Journal, continuing to record what I hope will be my legacy as a scientist and citizen. Like Frank Sinatra -

“I did it my way.”

By scanning down this page you will find the topics with which I am most concerned. To see what is currently going on, go to Recent Comments which will direct you to which of the six threads are currently active. Enjoy and participate if the spirit moves you! My current policy requires registration which I have found useful in preventing undue harassment and meaningless spam.

I occasionally edit earlier messages to bring them up to date so it is a good idea to review recent messages for information about how they are being received.

I have strong convictions about internet communication so I will present them now. I have no respect for anonymous auhors unless there are sound reasons why they must remain unknown. Those reasons should be verified. All too often anonymity has proven to be license for vitriol and denigration. I further hope this blog can set a standard against which those blogs and forums that must ban their critics can be compared. We all know which blogs they are so I will not embarrass them and their sponsors by naming them. I will not delete any comment unless it is obscene or contributes nothing to the discussion. If I do respond, I will mention the author’s anonymity and ask why that should be necessary. I hope these conditions do not inhibit a free exchange of ideas which is the sole purpose of this weblog.

I have strong opinions on the subject of what has been called “global warming.” I regard the changes that are occurring on this planet as threatening our very existence as both a species and a civilization. I look forward to the opportunity to defend and promote that position.

I am also a great admirer of Albert Einstein and subscribe without reservation to his determinism -

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”

As far as I can determine we are all victims in a determined, “prescribed” cosmic scenario. Some of us have been luckier than others.

I hope this brief introduction will serve to set the stage for what to expect from me on - “John A. Davison’s Weblog,” now renamed – “The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of South Burlington (Vermont).”

Please note that I have renamed this weblog -

“The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of South Burlington (Vermont).

It is based on the title of the journal in which Gregor Mendel published his 1868 paper -

“The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn (Austria).

Mendel realized that his paper would not be accepted in the leading botanical journals of his day so he wisely chose to publish it in a journal for which he was an editor. I am doing the same thing that Mendel did. From now on I too will publish my papers in the journal for which I am an editor. I am sick of having my science and that of my distinguished predecessors rejected out of hand by Editors and their hand picked Editorial boards all still swimming in the same atheist tank with Richard Dawkins, Paul Zachary Myers and every other of the thousands of Darwinian zealots with which evolutionary science is still so very impaired. Darwinism was dead on arrival in 1859. Only Darwinian mystics still imagine it wasn’t.

The following summary may help explain why I have this blog as it describes my terminal history at the University of Vermont. I resigned in December 2000 to continue my interest in the great mystery of organic evolution free of the atheist inspired Darwinian bias still is so prevalent in the halls of academe, especially here in the United States and Great Britain. This essay was presented on my old University webpage prior to my resignation. That webpage was subsequently frozen by the University Administration.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN ANTIDARWINIAN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT

John A. Davison, Ph.D.
Department of Biology

In 1984 I published the first of a series of papers offering
a new hypothesis of organic evolution: “Semi-meiosis as an
Evolutionary Mechanism” appeared in the Journal of Theoretical
Biology. 1984 also happens to be the title of George Orwell’s
novel, the significance of which will soon become evident.

I have always enjoyed teaching Introductory Biology and that
experience has been instrumental in causing me to question the
neo-Darwinian view of the evolutionary process. After leaving the
staff of Biology 1 and 2, I introduced a new course designed expressly
for non-science majors: Zoology 8 (The Animal World). This course
proved to be popular and enjoyed enrollments of around 100 students.
The last two lectures were concerned with the mechanism of evolution,
and in those lectures I introduced the semi-meiotic hypothesis and
contrasted it with the neo-Darwinian view.

Sometime in the fall of 1991 the chairman called a secret meeting of
the tenured faculty at which he introduced a petition which served to
eliminate Zoology 8 from the departmental offerings. He then exited
the room leaving a majority of the faculty to sign the petition.
I knew nothing of this until the newspaper appeared and Zoology 8 was
missing. I was unable to have the course reinstated. As the course
was outside the departmental curriculum, this action was a clear
violation of not only my academic freedom but also that of those
students who had chosen to study with me.

After the chairman left the university, he was succeeded by
a member of the department who was a signatory to the Zoology 8
petition. At that time my salary became fixed and it has remained
so ever since. The new chair is also an Associate Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences, a precedent which I regard as dangerous.
The chair also arbitrarily relieved me of my two advanced courses,
Biology 202 (Quantitative Biology) and Biology 255 (Comparative
Reproductive Biology). These courses were electives which had been
approved by the department and the Graduate College. I was able with
some difficulty to get these courses reinstated only to discover that
Biology 202 had been deleted from the catalog, resulting in an
enrollment of 3 in contrast to 30 the previous year. The chair
also capped the enrollment of Biology 255, an action I was able
to reverse by informing the registrar. The chair refused to take
responsibility for these actions. The chair introduced the hitherto
unknown practice of “peer review”, in which a colleague enters the
classroom unannounced and later reports his impressions to the chair.
The peer the chair chose to review me was a signatory of the Zoology 8
petition. You can imagine the rest! The chair also demanded of all
faculty that they surrender to her on two weeks’ notice copies of
course syllabi and examinations. I am happy to report that I refused
to comply. By now I hope you will have noted the identity of these
policies with those of the dystopian government of Orwell’s 1984:
the Thought Police, Big Brother is watching you, etc.

In October 1997 a new president was inaugurated at the University
of Vermont. Long before her arrival on campus I informed her of
all of the foregoing and more, all of which was fully documented.
I was confident that these policies would cease. I never received
any acknowledgement of my correspondence thus qualifying as
an Orwellian unperson.

I warned the new president that if I should receive a zero raise
for the fourth consecutive year, I would do everything in my power
to expose the policies of this administration to the intellectual
world. That unfortunately has now become necessary, and constitutes
the sole motivation for this memorandum. What we are witnessing here
is the enormous influence monolithic neo-Darwinism can have in at
least one state university.

Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing
to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

— George Orwell, 1984

Addendum
May 25, 2000

We are now well into the new millennium and my salary remains frozen
at the 1995 level. The department launched an inquiry (the Thought
Police) into what was being taught concerning the origin of life.
I happily supplied the pertinent material from my most recent effort,
An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change.
No action has as yet been taken but based on my experience, I must
anticipate the worst. My chairperson, Judith Van Houten, has denied
me the services of the departmental webmaster. Luckily, I was able
to find other help for the recent revision of the Manifesto. She
also felt it necessary to cancel my course code for the copy machine.
I registered a complaint and that has now been rectified.

Being by nature curious, I am interested in the reasons for this
special treatment. The following must be considered speculative
as I can only base my interpretations on my experience here at the
University of Vermont. It seems that chairpersons here are given
unbridled authority to deal with their faculty as they choose.
In Van Houten’s case she is also an Associate Dean in the College
of Arts and Sciences so she is in effect her own immediate superior!
This raises a serious question as to the function of the academic
hierarchy of Chair, Dean, Provost, President, the Board of Trustees
and the Governor who is ex officio a member of that board. Is there
really any need for this bureaucracy to exist? What is its function?

The issue resolves into a failure to understand what university life
is supposed to be all about. A university should foster freedom of
thought and make life as pleasant as possible for the faculty, the
students and the community it serves. The University of Vermont has
failed to implement those ideals. Quite the contrary, it has chosen
to treat its faculty as if they were employees. I am reminded of the
following anecdote. A few years before running for the presidency of
the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed president
of Columbia University. In his opening speech to the faculty
he addressed them as “the employees of Columbia University”.
A member of the faculty rose and interrupted him with the following:
“Mr. Eisenhower, we are not the employees of Columbia University.
We are Columbia University.”

Of course, to be perfectly objective about this I really cannot
place all the blame on Van Houten. It may well be that others in
the bureaucracy are responsible for the intolerance that has come to
prevail here. I can only say that, in my personal experience, it is
of relatively recent origin. In any event, if there really is some
sort of chain of command (I see no evidence that there is) then the
responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of each member of that
chain as follows: Joan Smith, Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences; Geoffrey Gamble, Provost; Judith Ramaley, President; the
Board of Trustees; and Howard Dean, Governor of the State of Vermont.

It is painful for me to have to report that orthodoxy still reigns
supreme here at the University of Vermont. The people of this great
state deserve better from their educational servants.

John A. Davison
——————————————————————————–

Today, a decade later, December 20, 2010, Joan Smith is no longer with us, Judith Van Houten is no longer Chair of the Department of Biology, the Provost, Geoffrey Gamble, resigned the same day I did to become President of Montana State University, Howard Dean is no longer Governor, Judith Ramaley has gone elsewhere but the University of Vermont remains, like most institutions of higher learning, what it has always been, intolerant to any departure from orthodoxy.

I intend to do some house cleaning and will delete comments that did not belong in one of the six threads.

I hope everyone understands. Thank you for your patience.

DaveScot/David Springer of Uncommon Descent lets dissenters speak only then typically to dismiss their author with “___ is no longer with us” or “you’re outta here Homo” or some other equally charming farewell. Then if things get dull he may let them back in again so he can enjoy expelling them for a second and in my case a third time. My first banishment from Uncommon Descent consisted of being unable to reregister. I  have no idea who was responsible for that one. Most probably it was Dembski. Of course banishment remains the responsibility of the blog owner or owners.

ARN and RichardDawkins.net have not only banished me but denied me viewing their proceedings from this computer.

Why do so many blogs and forums  find it necessary to engage in such tactics? That is the subject of this thread. What does this mean? What does it accomplish?  How can one properly respond to a critic if he cannot continue the dialogue to some sort of conclusion? Doesn’t it just promote resentment? Thankfully I have not yet had to delete a single comment or ban any user from this blog. Of course that may change. I look forward to the views of others on what I regard, with anonymity, as a very important issue. In the meantime -

“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the spider to the fly;
T’is the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.”

Mary Howitt

I hope that others will offer their predictions and I do not mean to limit our predictions to only evolutionary matters. One can make predictions on  any subject one chooses.

Let me start the ball rolling with a couple of my own.

1. Before the end of this decade those who deny an anthropogenic global warming will be scarce as hen’s teeth.

2. Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee for the 2008 election and he will probably win! Now I am really out on a limb with this one but I am trying to evoke a little more interest in this blog!

Now let’s hear from others what their predictions are. You don’t even have to use your right names but it would be nice if you did. How else can you be rewarded for being right?

 ”A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

It is my conviction that creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. Just as ontogeny is a self-limiting process terminating in the adult organism and its subsequent death,  phylogeny has had a similar history resulting in the current biota. I see no evidence for the emergence of any new life forms, only trivial variations in existing species. In the distant past creative evolution and extinction were occurring simultaneously.  That is no longer evident. This idea is not original with me and has been suggested by such distinguished scientists as Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse. I have simply extended their conclusions to include true speciation. Stated another way, there is no longer a balance between creative evolution and extinction. Related to this sequence is the evidence that Homo sapiens seems to be the youngest mammal ever to appear which suggests a goal directed process, now complete. Extinction is rampant as fragile habitats are being destroyed by human activity and with them all those species restricted to those habitats. The exact number of known species is unknown with estimates ranging from one to ten million, but that tens of thousands of them have become and are becoming extinct cannot be denied. I know of not a single  replacement. If others think they do, please use this opportunity to identify it along with its immediate ancestor and the cytogenetic mechansim by which it was produced.

I realize this perspective is in marked contrast to the Darwinian model. I present it confident that the Darwinians will ignore this opportunity to defend their paradigm in open discussion. The atheist Darwinian establishment has traditionally pretended that they had no critics and I offer this challenge primarily to demonstrate to the scientific community that little has changed in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” a book which offers, in my opinion, absolutely nothing of substance relating to its title. 

The reason that this challenge will not be met is because the “establishment” now realizes that their model is a dismal failure. Rather than admit that they have dedicated their professional lives to a phantom, they have chosen to lash out blindly at all who recognize that chance could never have had anything to do with the origin or the susequent history of either ontogeny or phylogeny.

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

As a physiologist I regard man as a chemical machine obtaining energy through the oxidation of fuel just as other chemical machines do. Machines are rated in horse power; one horsepower is 746 watts. A 70 kilogram human at rest is producing heat, CO2, and H2O through the oxidation of  food stuffs at a rate of about a tenth of a horsepower (80 watts). Accordingly,  a human, when driving a typical automobile rated at 200 horsepower, is producing CO2 and H2O at a rate 2000 times greater than himself.

 No other animal has the energy requirement of Homo sapiens. It is all due to the industrial society we have created. Everything we do produces CO2 far beyond that needed for our physiological maintenance as an animal. Coupled with this, we are by far the most numerous mammal on earth, approaching 7 billions – 7,000,000,000. No other mammal even comes close. There may be an equal number of chickens which contribute a substantial fraction of our animal food.  These mind boggling numbers have led me to question if it is possible to sustain a civilization with such requirements.  My intuitive, knee jerk, reaction, and that is all that it is, is a definite NO!

What I find amazing is the polarization that surrounds this issue. It is demonstated in the rallying cry of the skeptics invading  the Bali Conference, shouting – “Have the courage to say no.” What could possibly ever be accomplished by such an attitude?

I recently discovered the book, “The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery, an Australian climatologist and naturalist. Like myself, he has reached what  can only be described as a doomsday forecast. While my concern is only intuitive, Flannery presents solid evidence that the changes we see taking place right now have already proceeded too far to be reversed.  I recommend his book for all those interested in the future of the  earth which, as far as we know, is the only planet in the universe supporting life in any form. The way things are progressing, Homo sapiens, the youngest and apparently last mammal species that will, in my opinion, ever appear may also prove to be the one with the shortest life span.

The only solution I can offer involves the reduction of our numbers by at least two orders of magnitude to around 70 million, or very roughly the world’s population prior to the industrial revolution a mere two centuries ago. It was that revolution that produced this result. Never in the history of the planet have such great changes taken place over such a short period of time.

I consider pandemic disease to be the most likely means by which this reduction will occur. 

I realize this is a pessimistic forecast and with that in mind, I welcome the views of others.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”