Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From The Best Schools: Seeing Past Darwin II: James A. Shapiro



Here’s James Barham:

A molecular biologist at the University of Chicago by the name of James A. Shapiro (left) recently published a masterly synthetic work which constitutes the most substantial contribution to date to post-Darwinian thinking in contemporary biology.(1)

The volume in question is entitled Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press, 2011), and it is simply stunning in every respect.

However, Shapiro’s masterpiece is packed with technical detail, and for that reason it may not be as widely read as it ought to be outside of academia. That is why it is so encouraging that Professor Shapiro has decided to publicize the core insights of his work through an ongoing series of short essays—comprising some 15 pieces to date—on Huffington Post’s science blog.

I say I’m “encouraged” by his decision to do this, because the importance of bringing the insights of Shapiro and others to a wider audience can scarecely be exaggerated. Much in our culture depends upon the public’s being made aware that Darwinian theory as standardly interpreted is intellectually bankrupt.(2) And little that I have encountered communicates this fact so well as the work of James A. Shapiro.

I will proceed by first looking at a few of the most significant of Professor Shapiro’s blog posts, and then turning to his magnum opus. More.

Part I is here.

Good question, Chris Doyle. One problem is that atheistic evolutionists have, for the most part, sold out to Darwinism as a cause, period, and have simply gone into reaction mode against Shapiro and others. There's no talking with them about the problems. Only recently, they were crowing up a storm about the fact that Majerus demonstrated that - even though Kettlewell's experiment was botched - the basic principle that moth pigments could be influenced by natural selection is correct. So? Heck, did you know that a large proportion of Arctic mammal subspecies have white coats? It's just the level of change that anyone would agree is within the range of Darwin's natural selection. (But Kettlewell hadn't demonstrated it - a different matter.) It seems, that's the level of change Darwinists expect to have to explain, while claiming credit for the origin of complex machinery. The scandal is that they've been able to get away with their scambo for so long. News
Is anybody aware of any coherent, serious response by an atheistic evolutionist to Shapiro admitting that 21st century science has jettisoned neo-darwinism? What about all those who used to post here before getting themselves banned, the ones who put all their faith in the power of natural selection acting upon random mutations (if I never see another desperate appeal to GAs again, it will be too soon!)? Who is championing their cause for them now that Shapiro has blown a shrill whistle on the myth of neo-darwinism? I'd even be interested to hear if any theistic evolutionists have tried to rescue natural selection and random mutations from Shapiro's potent attack. What I like most about Shapiro's book is that it simply confirms what we've been saying all along: you can't get from microbes to man through natural selection acting upon random mutations: atheistic evolutionists and neo-darwinists disagree with us but, as has always been the case, science (especially 21st century science) is on our side, not theirs. Chris Doyle

Leave a Reply