what they think of Darwin’s Doubt …
It is possibly the first book to explain to lay people what teachers daren’t raise when discussing the Cambrian explosion with students (in some places, legal issues, maybe). So, when it was well received, by the time the premier Christians! For Darwin! group, BioLogos, got around to dissing it, who really the heck cared what they thought?
Meanwhile, they have now primly concluded their attacks:
In addition to these detailed scientific critiques, Stearley, Bishop, and Falk all raised larger concerns with how Darwin’s Doubt portrays the state of research today. While the authors agree with Meyer and mainstream biologists that one mechanism of evolution (natural selection) is insufficient by itself to explain the development of animal body plans, they did not call the Cambrian explosion “unsolved” or “awaiting a solution.” They all referred to the modern, extended neo-Darwinian synthesis, which includes multiple evolutionary mechanisms (e.g., symbiogenesis, developmental constraints, and epigenetics) acting alongside natural selection to generate and constrain novelty, as well as the exciting work being done to apply this synthesis to the Cambrian explosion. Falk sees bigger developments going on here than Bishop and Stearley, but they all see it as an extension of existing models and a promising area of research rather than, as Meyer characterizes it, a failed program. Bishop shows that one of the main problems with the design inference in Darwin’s Doubt is the failure to address the modern synthesis of multiple evolutionary mechanisms. Far from not responding to the science in Darwin’s Doubt, all three authors address the fundamental scientific argument in the book. These authors are not acting out of some philosophical bias, but giving their scientific assessment of the state of the field and current scientific evidence.
Darwinian explanations of the Cambrian period are a big flop.
BioLogos is itself a failed but well-funded program. Like a lot of what goes on in the United States today. You can’t just throw money at something to make it work. And I have only one thing to say in response.
It all sounds like this: My name is Yesterday and Used to was, and Done to death and It will wash no more.
Except in Christian circles where it is a polite way of bringing up reasons not to buy into traditional religion. Marx and Freud didn’t work, maybe Darwin will?
If you don’t have better things to do, you are missing out.
Follow UD News at Twitter!