Recently, we’ve seen some rather abrupt shifts: The Royal Society is suddenly rethinking the importance of Darwinism in evolution—which will have huge ramifications even if they lose heart and flee the scene.
It’s enough that they even considered such grave apostasy.
For most people who grew up in the English-speaking world, evolution (indeed, all of biology) is Darwinism. The American Darwin-in-the-schools lobby, for example, has no similar interest in horizontal gene transfer, hybridization, epigenetics, or other ways evolution can happen. No one is suing the school board over chromosome doubling or getting their pants in a knot over convergence.
But then these demonstrated ways evolution can happen do not add up to a grand naturalist scheme either. It’s more like an honest history: attested but messy
And now we learn that Templeton is funding non-Darwinian approaches to evolution.
The best long form way to understand what is happening would be to read Michael Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis.
Meanwhile, predictably, some who are benefiting from Templeton’s largesse want the world to know that nothing is happening with this new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). For example, beneficiary Kevin Laland allows us to know,
Steve Gould spoke of the need for a new evolutionary paradigm and more recently Denis Noble has argued that neo-Darwinism needs ‘replacing’. I personally find such language counterproductive. I defend people’s right to think differently, and I strongly believe that in a healthy science no assumptions, no matter how longstanding or cherished, should be beyond questioning. However, I worry that talk of ‘revolution’ and ‘replacement’ gives the wrong impression. It implies that the radicals want to rip up the textbooks and start all over, and that is simply not correct. I know of no professional biologist that wants that. What the people who use those terms want to ‘replace’ is simply how the findings are interpreted. It is certainly true that many EES sympathizers, myself included, would like to see fundamental change in how the evolutionary process is described and understood. But what this really boils down to is recognition that, in addition to selection, drift, mutation and other established evolutionary processes, other factors, particularly developmental influences, shape the evolutionary process in important ways. However, that influence is hard to see from the traditional standpoint, so we need to encourage alternative conceptual frameworks. Nevertheless, in the EES, all processes central to contemporary evolutionary theory, and all empirical and theoretical findings, remain important. That is why I am more comfortable speaking of ‘extension’ or ‘revision’.
Translation: It’s a demolition project, described by the authorities as urban renewal. And it’s happening mainly due to the dogged efforts of Denis Noble.
Now, as to how it will affect the ID community: First, it’s becoming okay to talk about what’s wrong with the neo-Darwinian model of evolution without getting fired or flatlined, or even creating a sense of walking on the wild side. That’s why Darwin spear carrier Jerry Coyne thinks the end is nigh.
Once it’s accepted that both Darwinian and post-Darwinian models of evolution are flawed, we are back in the world of evidence, arguing about history. EESers think that a fully naturalist model that works can be found; IDers think that no model that ignores the nature and laws of information can work. If the IDers are right, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis will solve only those problems directly created by Darwinism.
Let’s see how that prediction fares.
The big advance is if evidence starts to matter again. That’s because, to a great extent, Darwin’s followers have prevailed by establishing dogmas that were only to be supported, not contested. Support for so many propositions whistling through the science media consisted simply in showingthat the claims were consistent with Darwinism.
If we’re through with that, we have something to talk about.
See also: Denton on the growing chorus of dissent It’s helpful to keep in mind, however, that most of the news the public hears from pop science media is generated by the Darwin Boys’ Fan Club.
and
What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Dean
“Green Blob” Attacks – TV commercial
http://www.tvcommercialspots.c.....rs-straig/
Rethinking Darwin can only help ID. After all, Darwin is allegedly the only known ID replacement.
Just about every day brings good news about the slow and steady collapse of Darwinism. I particularly enjoyed reading the following lines in this post:
“it’s becoming okay to talk about what’s wrong with the neo-Darwinian model of evolution without getting fired or flatlined, or even creating a sense of walking on the wild side. That’s why Darwin spear carrier Jerry Coyne thinks the end is nigh.”
These are great days indeed!!!
I actually wonder
Of a poll was done on the climate alarmists how many of them are also Darwinists?
I wonder….
I’m sorry but I don’t think that is the case at all. From the last bit of your extended quote:
That does not sound like a ‘demolition project’ to me.
as to:
Do they ‘remain important’ even when the empirical and theoretical findings falsify the modern synthesis?
,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:
Of supplemental note:
Ellazimm at 6 apparently doesn’t understand milquetoast bafflegab when she hears it.
The guy’s terrified someone will think they mean business just because the demo crew has been wiring the building for weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nco5hmi3OmU
And if they didn’t, someone else would have to.
News #8
I really doubt that. I’ve been participating in discussions on UD for upwards of a decade now and I’ve been hearing about the imminent demise of the modern synthesis that whole time.
Why burn down the house when you really just need to redecorate and add on an extension?
ellazimm at 9: Upwards of a decade? Are we that old?
You got married and changed your name? Wowza!
Turned out we were right re the demise. Ten years is not a long time when you consider that the schtick lasted longer than Freud’s couch.
“In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years.” William Dembski, “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design.” Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
“Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation.” Gregory J. Brewer, “The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,” Impact, 341(2001), p. i
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
“Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it.” ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
“Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages.” ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
“Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the ’80’s. The ’80’s has been extremely bad for Evolution.Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the ’80’s.” D. James Kennedy on “The John Ankerberg Show,” 1987
“Furthermore, even if it wasn’t clear in Darwin’s day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time.” Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
“One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway.” ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191
“In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism” ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
“The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life.” Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114
For more than 150 years of such statements check out:
http://answersinscience.org/demise.html
You tell her ellazimm. Darwinian evolution is impervious to whatever the evidence may say no matter who says it, and Darwinian evolution will NEVER be falsified because Darwinian evolution was never even a science in the first place but was, and still is, first and foremost a religion that is impervious to scientific falsification.
etc.. etc.. etc..
BA77 €12
I do what I can.
Oh . . . well . . . guess we can pack up the tents and go home. Anyone need some extra firewood?
Re #11:
Dembski was right, wasn’t he? Molecular Darwinism is collapsing like the Taliban. Dembski just didn’t realize that the Taliban is estimated to have about twice as many active members now than before the US-led attacks on Afghanistan.
I thought ID was going to get all the credit for the kill but now EVERYBODY thinks old man Darwin got some, most, or something else wrong.
15 years will not pass before Evolutionism has been replaced by SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
a paradigm shift if you will.
Its possibly historians and kids doing high school projects on it will reference this UD.
Start using your real names maybe eh!
But this time around it’s really gonna happen. I’m sure of it.
(As an aside: This does remind me an awful lot of all the people who have been predicting the end of the world over and over and over again. I’m sure some day they are going to be right..)
hrun0815
This is different.
only these days is there a famous public attack on evolution by well degree ed scientists. Thats why the iD movement is feared so much.
Its different this time.
YEC, my crowd, always knew evolution was wrong and poorly evidenced.
Yet it had well degree ed scientists behind it. We didn’t have enough or many.
These are small circles.
On a curve I say its unlikely, or impossible, evolutionism will survive.
With so much of the public already opposed its impossible 15 years will go by without a fall.
Wrong ideas to survive must rely on faith in its defenders authority.
ID attacks the authority by simply being men of science.
Wrong errors like evolution will not survive without the crutch of authory exclusivity.
Its a equation.
Robert
It seems to me we’ve heard your sentiments many times before.
1894
“It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration.” ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206
1904
“Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel.” Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com …
1905
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend — Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com … Presages Scott Huse’s book by the same title in 1983
Book title
“The Passing of Evolution”, by George Frederick Wright. Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com …
1922
“The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time” – George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain’s reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/ori.....jul02.html
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)
unsourced variant: “Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science.”
Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010
Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
http://blogs.scientificamerica.....evolution/
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
“Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
“Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
Re #18: yup. Just like I said in #17, this time around it’s really gonna happen (unlike I’m the past 100+ years).