Here’s the original story.
But in this case, the Darwin critic doc was actually given a formal chance to reply, unlike Granville Sewell.
As Casey Luskin recounts, in “Darwin-Doubting Doctor Joseph Kuhn Replies to Unsophisticated Criticisms in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings” (May 2, 2012),
Dimijian opens his article with the statement that, “Evolutionary theory has never had a stronger scientific foundation than it does today.” He cites “the deep commitment of today’s biologists to Darwinian natural selection and to discoveries made since Darwin’s time.”
Ironically, Darwinian natural selection is under attack in the mainstream biological literature perhaps more today than it has been in many decades. We recently covered some of these critics of natural selection here. As journalist Susan Mazur observed after interviewing many scientists about the Altenberg 16 conference, there are “hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non-creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics, not science, and that we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a Darwinian industry built on an inadequate theory.”1 Likewise, Joseph Kuhn observes, “over 800 PhD scientists have signed a letter stating their concerns about the full scope of Darwinian evolution.”
Dimijian cites the classic icon of evolution, the Galápagos finches, stating: “There is no contender for causation other than natural selection.” But no Darwin-critic has ever stated otherwise. In fact, it seems likely that natural selection is a real force affecting the Galápagos finches, but its effects have been trivial.
Yes, that has always been the trouble with Darwinism. The OBSERVED effects of Darwinian evolution are trivial and the CLAIMED effects are stunning. Should you believe the Darwinist or your lying eyes?