Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do you remember that Baylor doctor who attacked Darwinism? Well, Darwin’s boys do strike back …

Evolution News and Views

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?

In Casy Luskin's article: In particular, there isn't unlimited time available for the origin of life. Stephen Jay Gould explains that the time available for the origin of life is not vast and unending, but extremely limited: "Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth's surface and the origin of life." I have a question. How much time is thought to have been available for the earliest life to form? Assuming the earth is 4.5-4.6 billion years ago and early life has supposedly been found in rocks 3.8 billion years old, that doesn't leave much time. Plus, the right conditions for life to form would not have been there from the start. So home many millions of years after earth formed is it thought that the conditions for life came into being? I would seem that the absolute longest time period would have been 800 million years. Still sounds like a long time, but could life have really formed in that period of time? tj tjguy
Will do, and will do! material.infantacy
Credit UD News. Our employers top up our coffee cards at the local Joe, up the Ganaraska. It is all we ask. Of course, if fate ever takes you this way, float your fanny up the Ganny, and have a fun nite with us. News
I love this, and I have every intention of stealing it: "The OBSERVED effects of Darwinian evolution are trivial and the CLAIMED effects are stunning." Well maybe not steal, but use anyway. Whom should I credit? material.infantacy

Leave a Reply