In response to Science writer boilerplate Jonathan Wells writes to say,
Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled a template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
1. Darwinian evolution is a fact.
2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
Yes, it’s a fact, all right. About the mindset of the people who do that.
Wells is the author of The Myth of Junk DNA, which is not short of examples on that subject.
See also: Jonathan Wells on the junk DNA myth: Yesterday, we noted the Abstract and Conclusion of Jonathan Wells’s Cornell Origin of Biological Information paper, “Not Junk After All.”
Here is an interview with Wells on the junk myth, “Yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such”, here’s an excerpt from his book, The Myth of Junk DNA, and here’s his response to critics, “Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA”.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
8 Replies to “Jon Wells on science journal boilerplate”
The only evidence ever witnessed of unguided neo-Darwinian evolution creating non-trivial information is when neo-Darwinists themselves create elaborate just so stories to try to ‘explain away’ how a sophisticated molecular structure, machine, or organism, may have come to be, or why a observation in molecular biology, or the fossil record, or etc.., does not fit a basic prediction of neo-Darwinian theory.
It it when Darwinists started to guard Darwinian evolution like a sacrad cow that I started having doubts about evolution . The way they avoided any critique of the theory caused me to look further into it which eventually caused me to leave the theory of unguided evolution and eventually I landed here on this forum.
All I here from them on other theiries is that science is always open to criticism which is why it grows , but when it comes to Darwinian evolution it’s an untouchable fact .
This is dogma , not science
Also of interest to Dr. Wells observation is how the word evolution itself is illegitimately used in these papers to attribute credit to Darwinism where none is due:
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a ‘narrative gloss’ in peer-reviewed literature:
And whereas biological research receives, to use the late Dr. Skell’s words, ‘no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution’, Intelligent Design provides beneficial guidance to biological research:
Last week’s wonderful PBS NOVA asks “Is math discovered or invented?”. Like God, it’s discovered duh:) Goes off the rails when monkeys slash materialism are obligatorily brought into the discussion, but quickly gets back on track with the discoveries by assorted flaming theists. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/p.....stery.html
So, is math Father, Son, or Holy Ghost? Yes!
And -the definition of a Scientist is someone who has concluded that Darwinism is a fact. So, if you haven’t come to that conclusion, which is also a litmus test for ideological competence, you simply don’t have anything to say worth hearing.
All these comments from a movement that doesn’t do science, hasn’t produced anything.
On a website that spends all its time in theology.
Whatever you think of ID is irrelevant. The problems of Darwinism and the problematic loyalty at all costs towards the hallowed paradigm of Darwinism by “scientists” remain whether ID sinks or swims.
You tend to comment on theology quite frequently, Graham. I guess we want to keep giving you something to talk about. 🙂