David Penny, the New Zealand evolutionary biologist at New Zealand’s Massey University who is trying to save Darwinism by claiming that Darwin attached no importance to the Tree of Life is, it must be said, one convinced Darwinist. In “20 Points on the structure and testability of Darwin’s theory” ( Biology International: Evolution in Action, September 2010), he explains,
Darwin’s theory of evolution is analyzed, firstly as the three major areas of microevolutionary processes, macroevolution, and the sufficiency of microevolutionary processes for macroevolution. The overall theory is then divided into 20 components, each of which has been thoroughly tested. A conclusion is that microevolution is simply inevitable; there is no way that we could stop, for example, the evolution of RNA viruses. Nor do we find well studied areas where microevolution is not able to account for macroevolution, though this is still an active area of research.
What to make of that last sentence? Darwinists seize on the tiniest evidence for micro becoming macro, and it never seems to happen, a fact that many admit.
It’s an active area of research for the same reason as you keep looking for your glasses if you haven’t found them yet. He also allows us to know,
Evolution is as fundamental to biology as the second Law of Thermodynamics is to the physical sciences.
Does this make sense? The Second Law is about what must happen in the observed universe; evolution is not in any sens a law and need not happen or happen in any particular direction. There are living fossils, extinct animals, and animals that have devolved. Where it actually occurs, evolution is a history, not a single theory or a law.
Is this hyperbole beginning to sound like a last hurrah?
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista