Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis doing well on Kindle

arroba Email


January 23, 2016, 7:30 pm EST:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #31,015 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

Book to be released January 26.

More than thirty years after his landmark book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), biologist Michael Denton revisits his earlier thesis about the inability of Darwinian evolution to explain the history of life. He argues that there remains “an irresistible consilience of evidence for rejecting Darwinian cumulative selection as the major driving force of evolution.” From the origin of life to the origin of human language, the great divisions in the natural order are still as profound as ever, and they are still unsupported by the series of adaptive transitional forms predicted by Darwin. In addition, Denton makes a provocative new argument about the pervasiveness of non-adaptive order throughout biology, order that cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism.

Note: Denton had actually wanted to call his earlier book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, “Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis,” but was persuaded otherwise by the publisher. Tht occasioned much misunderstanding of what he was trying to say.

Incidentally, a friend draws our attention to this discussion of the work of non-religious/atheistic skeptics of Darwinism/proponents of ID, for example,

Jerry Fodor is a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Rutgers University. In his 2010 book, What Darwin Got Wrong, coauthored with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, the two profess being “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists,” but nonetheless contend “there is something wrong—quite possibly fatally wrong—with the theory of natural selection.”12 Like Margulis, they face pushback from peers who feel they are betraying science: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute.”13 They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.”14 Nonetheless, Fodor isn’t afraid to challenge the consensus. Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,”15 he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed…there’s a crack in the foundations.”16

No wonder the foundations are crumbling; the Darwinians tried to place all of life on them.

See also: Evolution: Still a theory in crisis (November 2015)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I looked up “how did bird lungs evolve” on google and found out that in 2010 it was discovered that crocodilians have unidirectional flow lungs but of a simpler type than birds. Does anyone have more detailed information on Denton’s explanation of why birds lungs could not have evolved gradually?
Therapod dinosaurs also are said to have a similar type of lung to birds, but that doesn't prove the point as claimed. Quote below is from the following article: http://creation.com/bird-breathing-anatomy-breaks-dino-to-bird-dogma
Despite their rejection of dino-to-bird dogma, both Ruben and Quick, like Feduccia, believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile. But here they become tentative, e.g. Quick says:
“We aren’t suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. That’s quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later.”
Michael Denton seems to be a naturalist, according to his remarks in the video. What does he consider to be the significance of the fine tuning of the universe to support human life which he seems to advocate here: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1 and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg&feature=youtu.be Is it just an interesting scientific fact worth defending for the sake of scientific truth? Or does he think it implies something more in a philosophical way? Jim Smith
Here is a series of three articles by Denton published in 2015 that look like preview to his new book: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Revisited http://inference-review.com/author/michael-denton Jim Smith
In the video, which seems to be from 2014 Michael Denton says bird lungs cannot have evolved gradually. I looked up "how did bird lungs evolve" on google and found out that in 2010 it was discovered that crocodilians have unidirectional flow lungs but of a simpler type than birds. Does anyone have more detailed information on Denton's explanation of why birds lungs could not have evolved gradually? Jim Smith

Leave a Reply