Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Just shut up you losers, and pay: The Darwin lobby vs any evolution theory but Darwin’s

arroba Email

I am currently reading New Zealand journalist Suzan Mazur’s excellent Altenberg 16, which, among other things, gives you a good look at the underbelly of the Darwin racket.

For example, at the Rockefeller University Evolution Symposium (May 2009), Mazur, who has interviewed a number of prominent scientists who think that self-organization is one form of evolution, asked Eugenie Scott of NCSE (the Darwin lobby) why self-organization was not represented in the books that NCSE was promoting.

She responded that people confuse self-organization with intelligent design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive. (P. 101)

But later, NCSE responded “NCSE does not recommend specific textbook publishers to ensure that their treatment evolution is extensive, pervasive, and up-to-date, and we oppose the use of textbooks that treat creationism as scientifically credible.” (Mazur, p. 254).

I know which one of the two statements I believe.

But if the self-organization guys belong to Darwin lobby groups like NCSE and make noises in their defense, there is not much anyone can do but pity them.

Mazur’s is one of those books, like Edge of Evolution, of which I tend to say, read it or don’t, but if you don’t, never pontificate to me again in defense of the Darwin racket, let alone the Jesus-for-Darwin racket.

I have read "The Edge" so perhaps you will indulge me a question. From your About button "At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support... My question: Why does the ID community persist in offering their perspective as an "alternate" to "materialistic" theories? This frames the question as choosing between the "physical" and "meta physical". Almost demanding the rejoinder that ID is not science and you must be a god person. Further, by focusing on the conclusion "It must have been designed" one is lead to believe that you start with a conclusion and then work back to find support. To be sure i find the ID work cutting edge and exciting so i am on your side here. What i don't understand is why you don't emphasis a competing theory of evolution; Materialistic, Darwinian, Evolving, Common Decent, Mutations, etc. which conforms to observational data but offers a compelling alternative to the conventional. Especially when an alternative is obvious: The "Original DNA" system was richly endowed with information being the key idea. As an elaboration (From an earlier thread i said): For your consideration: I offer a theory of evolution that supports ID but does not require: …smooth, gradually rising, easily found evolutionary pathway… As follows: 1. Original DNA contained all the functionally specific information to construct all possible life forms. 2. The gnome is organized as a three part architecture. Library, Pointers, Arguments. 3. Replication is designed to copy the Library and the Pointers but combine the Arguments. 4. Replication errors (mutations) that occur to the pointers will result in large non smooth transitions. Thanks for your indulgence. JLS

Leave a Reply