Culture Darwinism News

Why Darwinism is failing II

Spread the love

In “Why Darwinism is failing,” I noted that genome mapping changed the way we look at evolution: We are now much closer to the world of mechanism, not theory—closer to Popular Mechanics than to Philosophical Quarterly. The “single greatest idea anyone ever had” gives way to descriptions of mechanisms few expected or predicted—each of which might account for some evolution, though most of the picture is still missing.

Darwin’s defenders, apart from endless terminology quibbles, respond by insisting that natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) can find room for all of it somehow. They seem not to have noticed that all useful theories are bounded. A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

By contrast, no one claims that horizontal gene transfer is so vast as to include epigenetics, genome doubling, and endosymbiosis. Each is a distinct, demonstrable mechanism in its own right.

But there is something else: Evolution has become a history. Histories are specific, and resilient in the long run to grand theories of the sort that produce accolades like ”most influential academic book” ever.

As noted here:

The more we learn about the history of life on earth, the less evolution is theory and the more it is history. It is less like Epicureanism and more like World War II. That cannot be good for Darwinian thinking, which fills in large gaps in history by the exercise of theory. Things that “must have” happened if the theory is correct are assumed to have happened.

But history is not like that. Consider, for example, Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese crippled the U.S. Pacific fleet in a surprise attack, though the United States was not at war with Japan. Assume that the account broke off there. Maybe a theory can fill in the blanks for us and tell us what “had to” happen.

But then, what if we later discover more and more evidence for what actually happened? It will be bad news Tuesday for some theories developed in the absence of evidence — maybe for quite a few theories. More.

After a while, gerrymandering a grand theory to “account for” unexpected evidence seems like a waste of time to anyone but true believers.

Darwinism is not, of course, failing in the popular imagination, or at least, not yet. Bimbette’s vast TV audience still believes, as does the “breath of fresh air” theology prof, and Zack Kopplin. But increasingly, the impetus comes less and less from keen minds like Collins and Venter, more and more from celebs, zealots, and lobbyists.

The history of life just cannot sustain the weight of so grand a theory.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Why Darwinism is failing II

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    When the church got behind Copernicus, the worldview changed. Same with Bacon & Kepler etc etc:
    http://www.godandscience.org/a.....faith.html

    Theistic Evolution is the most popular flavor of Evolution in the world today. Darwinism won’t truly fail until Theists abandon it.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Again AMEN. IT IS A HISTORY. Right or wrong it still is just a history. However its wrong to say its a hypothesis of science in good standing. No science in it if examined closely.

    Yes in explaining everything it explains nothing.
    I have an idea.
    If all biology can be explained, as Darwin said from small steps accumulating, then why can’t creationists make a VERY IMPROBABLE biological lineage claim and THEN demand of evolutionists why it couldn’t be if small steps can explain everything.
    So the unlikelyness of fish becoming fishermen could be highlighted by a case such as a FISH becoming a elephant becoming a whale becoming a monkey becoming a cave spider becoming a monkey with that runs like a cheetah becoming a penguin becoming a human being.
    WEll evolutionists why not? Small steps(selection on mutations) should explain this and who can say it can’t happen? Evolution could do this or say why not??
    It explains everything and everything that can be imagined HOWEVER UNREASONABLE from human standards of likelyness.

  3. 3
    Jack Jones says:

    It failed long ago Denyse.

    Modern upgraded darwinism failed too with the modern synthesis, now I hear about the evolving synthesis and the extended synthesis or hear talk that the modern synthesis needs replacing altogether etc.

    The evolutionary community now cannot even agree what the theory is, maybe it is the new new new synthesis, it could be the new new new new new new new new synthesis.

    hahahahaha

Leave a Reply