Jonathan Wells discusses the scientific status of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
15 Replies to “Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Jonathan Wells discusses the scientific status of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Darwinism and neo-Darwinism have proven to be useless heuristics. Even worse they have obstructed scientific progress. Evo-devo was their last great hope but it too has been a total bust but they won’t admit that.
As Dr. Wells pointed out at the 4:32 minute mark of the video, Darwinism has NOT contributed anything to science. Moreover, when scrutinizing details of what makes a theory scientific, we find instead that ‘neo-Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science’,,
Even Darwin himself, in a private corespondence to Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, admitted that his ‘speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science’,,,
Another way to clearly see that Darwinism is not really a rigid science in any meaningful sense, but is instead a pseudo-science, is to see if neo-Darwinism has ever led to any profound breakthroughs in science,,, But in spite of the fact that materialists/atheists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in biology, in a article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author finds neo-Darwinism to be superfluous.
The late Dr. Skell is not alone in his analysis of the ‘narrative gloss’ nature of Darwin’s theory
Even the staunch atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, agrees that Darwinism does not guide biological research, (apparently not even his own research in discovering the structure of DNA),
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is almost always falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a ‘narrative gloss’ in peer-reviewed literature:
Here are a few more examples of Darwinists falsely attributing positive evidence to evolution, i.e. as a ‘narrative gloss’,,
Whereas, unlike Darwinism, ID is ‘a driver of science’ instead of being merely a narrative gloss or useless baggage as neo-Darwinism is:
corrected links:
Like a Grandfather Clock: The Splicesome’s Intricate Dance of Parts – June 17, 2014
Excerpt: Like a late-model SUV equipped with a buggy whip, this was an elegant design article carrying unnecessary baggage. Intelligent design did the work. Evolution, as a useless narrative gloss, adds mass but no force.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....86791.html
It’s Optimal. It Must Have Evolved! – August 16, 2014
Excerpt: These (optimal) solutions “have been arrived at” — by design? No; read the last sentence in the paper: “It is appealing that one might look to biology for insights into solutions of hard optimization problems, arrived at as a result of evolution within an information niche.” Evolution did it. Give evolution the engineering design award.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89031.html
Dr Wells entered science with the avowed purpose of destroying Darwinism so I find myself unable to accept his uncorroborated word on anything concerning biology or science in general/
“uncorroborated word”
HMMM, as pointed out in post 2, his word is ‘corroborated’.
Moreover, instead of stating your opinion as if it really mattered as to establishing the truth of a matter, why don’t you just list all the major scientific breakthroughs that are attributable to Darwin’s theory? Surely that would more effectively silence criticism would it not?
Darwin day is needed because his day is over. The old guard just awaits waterloo.
Excellent video hiting excellent points.
I like especially how these trees of genetics and anatomy are shoehorned into the evolution concept.
In fact common design easily explains likeness in looks ans the dna begind looks.
Evolutionists , sadly, face being the intellectually inferior thinkers on great ideas in biology.
Creationists are headed for being recognized winners in these fights by a future world.
We don’t dislike our opponents but it is a contacxt sport.
they say too much.
Of note:
How Does Modern Medicine Depend on Darwinism?
Excerpt: “Undergirds all of modern medicine”?
I wonder if Sanders or anyone else can provide, as an example, one modern medical opinion that would be shown to be false if it were generally accepted that bodies are designed.
Editor’s Note: Readers are invited to submit their suggestions, for possible publication, via the Email Us button at the top of the ENV homepage. Dr. Philip Skell’s comments at The Scientist, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?,” seem pertinent here.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91451.html
So because Dr Wells entered science to destroy a failed paradigm Seversky won’t listen to what he says? Really?
Seversky
Darwin entered science to undermine Christianity’s success in advancing it. His only offered method of falsifying his theory: prove a negative. Some of the spin-offs from Darwinism:
– Phrenology
– Eugenics
– Origin of life studies (a big, fat zero)
– Evolutionary Psychology
bornagain77 @ 5
That’s a bit like the word of Don Corleone being corroborated by other Mafia dons.
Actually Seversky, I don’t exactly consider Crick, a staunch atheist, to be a friendly witness. Moreover, as I invited you earlier, you are free to cite the ANY scientific breakthroughs that are directly attributable to Darwin’s theory.
For instance did it lead to the discovery that there is far less junk DNA than Darwinists originally presupposed? If not, why not?
etc.. etc..
Joe @ 8
If it was such a “failed paradigm”, why bother? I doubt he would have gone to all that trouble to destroy Flat Earthism.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t listen to him, just that I wouldn’t accept anything he said about evolutionary biology on his word alone.
Seversky, and exactly why should anyone care what your opinion is? Especially since you think that the unfathomed complexity found in life, that our best engineers and programmers can only dream on imitating, arose by completely unguided processes. In case you don’t realize it, that is not a rational belief!.
Because it was still masquerading as science.
Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase “Design Principles” – November 28, 2014
Excerpt: The word “design” appears 24 times in the paper. “Selection” appears twice, in the phrase “selective pressure” (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word “evolution” appears just once:,,,
We see, therefore, that “design” references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find “machine” or “machinery” four times, “coding” or “encoding” 15 times, “information” (in terms of information to be processed) five times, “accurate” (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, “precision” 29 times, “efficient” four times, and “optimal” or “optimum” 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1.
Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,,
The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, “Yep, it’s fit. It’s optimal.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91531.html