Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Further to National Science Board dropping Darwin propaganda from science to-do list

arroba Email

Speaking as one who has worked in education curriculum, I would say that this news item, noted by Sal Cordova, is really a very significant change, so long as it lasts.

The key point is the admission that “There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution.”

Um, yeah. How about the Altenberg 16?

The key issue here is the “Darwinism only” approach to evolution. Few believe in it, and no one should. It is increasingly obvious that Darwinism is not the true origin of massive information inputs.

But I would hardly be surprised if lobbyists and helpful ninnies are now running around shouting that the Board has been taken over by religious crackpots, when it is only acknowledging a simple truth (in a politically evasive manner, of course): In North America, “evolution” has usually meant “Darwinism only”.

So there are two challenges: Finding out real facts about massive information inputs (the fun part), and second, slowly sidelining the Darwinists (the boring part).

In my view, the Darwinists had it coming. Evolutionary biologists, most of whom are tenured, were never willing to denounce “evolutionary psychology”. No matter how ridiculous the theses, they refused to state clearly, publicly, and as a profession, that that is not science.

Well, the problem is that everyone knew this, for example, wasn’t science. Which raises the question of whether evolutionary biology is itself a science. At any rate, it fully justifies broad skepticism of evolutionary biology’s current approach to evolution.

Here is the problem in a nutshell: If any stupid idea is okay as long as it fronts Darwinism, then stupid competes with – and nullifies – smart. Nice going, guys. Keep up the good work!

Good to hear, Sal! But given the current state of the "field" - if that is what it indeed is - it should be 300, not 3. Right now, I would be inclined to consign evolutionary biology to the netherworld currently occupied by "recovered memories therapy" and "Marxist economics". In other words, a failure to denounce nonsense, foolishness, and quackery - in the name of science - puts the whole field in disrepute. The main reason people usually cannot denounce nonsense is that they themselves are fronting stuff for which they know there is little evidence. O'Leary
At least 3 members of the National Academy of Sciences question the role of Darwinism in the emergence of features of biology: 1. Phil Skell 2. Michael Lynch 3. Masotoshi Nei At least 4 Nobel Prize Winners: 1. Richard Smalley 2. Ernst Chain 3. Christian Anfinsen 4. Eugene Wigner scordova

Leave a Reply