How will rethinking Darwin affect the ID community?

20 Replies to “How will rethinking Darwin affect the ID community?”

1. 1
   bornagain77 says:

   April 24, 2016 at 7:51 am

   Dean

   “Green Blob” Attacks – TV commercial
   http://www.tvcommercialspots.c.....rs-straig/
2. 2
   Mung says:

   April 24, 2016 at 7:51 am

   Rethinking Darwin can only help ID. After all, Darwin is allegedly the only known ID replacement.
3. 3
   Truth Will Set You Free says:

   April 24, 2016 at 1:14 pm

   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!!!
4. 4
   Andre says:

   April 24, 2016 at 1:22 pm

   I actually wonder

   Of a poll was done on the climate alarmists how many of them are also Darwinists?

   I wonder….
5. 5
   ellazimm says:

   April 24, 2016 at 2:56 pm

   ranslation: It’s a demolition project, described by the authorities as urban renewal.

   I’m sorry but I don’t think that is the case at all. From the last bit of your extended quote:

   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 does not sound like a ‘demolition project’ to me.
6. 6
   bornagain77 says:

   April 24, 2016 at 4:22 pm

   as to:

   “all processes central to contemporary evolutionary theory, and all empirical and theoretical findings, remain important.”

   Do they ‘remain important’ even when the empirical and theoretical findings falsify the modern synthesis?

   Eric Davidson (1937-2015) on Gene Regulatory Networks – Casey Luskin – October 18, 2015
   Excerpt: “Neo-Darwinian evolution … assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein- coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body- plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a premolecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and . . . natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan.”1
   – Eric Davidson
   The bottom line is that experimental research on dGRNs in modern animals shows that they do NOT appear flexible. Experts acknowledge this. They even acknowledge that it poses a challenge to neo-Darwinism. Those who claim otherwise are simply mistaken.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00141.html

   “contrary to classical evolution theory, the processes that drive the small changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for the evolution of the body plans of animals. These are apples and oranges” (2006)
   Eric Davidson, evolutionary developmental biologist, Caltech

   Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? – 12/04/2012 – Stuart A. Newman – Professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College
   Excerpt: In fact, adaptationist gradualism, though still popular in some scientific circles, is increasingly questioned and found wanting by evolutionary biologists working in an expanded set of disciplines.,,,
   First, let’s look at some of the expectations of the natural selection-based modern synthesis (of Darwinism): (i) the largest differences within given categories of multicellular organisms, the animals or plants, for example, should have appeared gradually, only after exceptionally long periods of evolution; (ii) the extensive genetic changes required to generate such large differences over such vast times would have virtually erased any similarity between the sets of genes coordinating development in the different types of organism; and (iii) evolution of body types and organs should continue indefinitely. Since genetic mutation never ceases, novel organismal forms should constantly be appearing.
   All these predictions of the standard model have proved to be incorrect.,,,
   With a 19th century notion of incremental material transformations no longer relevant to comprehending the range of organismal variation that has appeared throughout the history of life on Earth, the other pillar of the standard model can be discarded along with it. Specifically,,, there is no need for cycles of selection for marginal adaptive advantage to be the default explanation for macroevolutionary change.
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....40232.html

   Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
   Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
   http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

   “Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology”: Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin March 31, 2015
   Excerpt: Noble doesn’t mince words:
   “It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved.”
   Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that “genetic change is random,” (2) that “genetic change is gradual,” (3) that “following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population,” and (4) that “inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.” He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,,
   He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the “Integrative Synthesis,” where genes don’t run the show and all parts of an organism — the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything — is integrated.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94821.html

   Rocking the foundations of biology – video
   http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184

   ,, 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.

   Die, selfish gene, die – The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong – Dec. 2013
   Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene).
   Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong.
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-heard-of/

   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:

   Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E

   Of supplemental note:

   Genetics: Dawkins, redux – Nathaniel Comfort -Nature – 525, 184–185 (10 September 2015)
   Excerpt: A curious stasis underlies Dawkins’s thought. His biomorphs are grounded in 1970s assumptions. Back then, with rare exceptions, each gene specified a protein and each protein was specified by a gene. The genome was a linear text — a parts list or computer program for making an organism —insulated from the environment, with the coding regions interspersed with “junk”.
   Today’s genome is much more than a script: it is a dynamic, three-dimensional structure, highly responsive to its environment and almost fractally modular. Genes may be fragmentary, with far-flung chunks of DNA sequence mixed and matched in bewildering combinatorial arrays. A universe of regulatory and modulatory elements hides in the erstwhile junk. Genes cooperate, evolving together as units to produce traits. Many researchers continue to find selfish DNA a productive idea, but taking the longer view, the selfish gene per se is looking increasingly like a twentieth-century construct.
   http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....5184a.html

   Genes and Organisms: Improvising the Dance of Life – Stephen L. Talbott – Nov. 10, 2015
   Excerpt: The performances of countless cells in your body are redirected and coordinated as part of a global narrative for which no localized controller exists. This redirection and coordination includes a unique choreography of gene expression in each individual cell. Hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences move (or are moved) within vast numbers of cell nuclei, and are subjected to extraordinarily nuanced, locally modulated chemical activity so as to contribute appropriately to bodily requirements that are nowhere codified — least of all in those DNA sequences.,,,
   DNA in its larger matrix
   You may recall from my earlier article, “Getting Over the Code Delusion” (Talbott 2010), that packing DNA into a typical cell nucleus is like packing about 24 miles of very thin, double-stranded string into a tennis ball, with the string cut up (in the normal human case) into 46 pieces, corresponding to our 46 chromosomes.
   To locate a protein-coding gene of typical size within all that DNA is like homing in on a one-half-inch stretch within those 24 miles. Or, rather, two relevant half-inch stretches located on different pieces of string, since we typically have two copies of any given gene. Except that sometimes one copy differs from the other and one version is not supposed to be expressed, or one version needs to be expressed more than the other, or the product of one needs to be modified relative to the other. So part of the job may be to distinguish one of those half-inch stretches from the other. “Decisions” everywhere, it seems.
   But no such decisions are made in a vacuum. As it happens, the chromosome does not consist of a naked DNA double helix. Our DNA, rather, is bound up with a massive, intricate, and dynamic protein-RNA-small molecule complex (called chromatin) that is as fully “informative” for the cell as the DNA sequence itself — and, you might say, much more active and directive.,,,
   the cell, by managing the shifting patterns of the chromatin infrastructure within which DNA is embedded, brings our chromosomes into movement on widely varying scales. These include large looping movements that put particular genes into connection with essential regulatory sequences and with other, related genes (that is, with other one-half inch stretches of our “24 miles of string in a tennis ball”).,,,
   A gene is not in any case the kind of rigidly defined entity one might hope to calculate with. As a functional unit appropriate to current circumstances, it must be cobbled together by the cell according to the needs of the moment. There is no neatly predefined path to follow once the cell has located the “right” half inch or so of string, or once it has done whatever is necessary to bring that locus into proper relation with other chromosomal loci participating in the same “dance”.
   One issue has to do with the fact that there are two strands in the DNA double helix and, starting from any particular point, it is possible to transcibe either of two DNA sequences in either of two directions: “forward” along one strand, or “backward” along the other. This yields two completely different products. One of them is very likely not even a protein-coding RNA, and yet it may still play a vital role in gene expression and in cellular processes more generally.
   And even when the cell would proceed in one particular direction, it must “choose” the exact point in the genetic sequence at which to begin. Different starting points can yield functionally distinct results. “Many studies focusing on single genes have shown that the choice of a specific transcription start site has critical roles during development and cell differentiation, and aberrations in . . . transcription start site use lead to various diseases including cancer, neuropsychiatric disorders, and developmental disorders”.8,,,
   The (protein) enzyme that transcribes DNA into RNA is RNA polymerase12. The enzyme certainly does not work alone, however, and its task is by no means cut-and-dried. To begin with, its critical interactions with various elements of the pre-initiation complex help determine whether and exactly where transcription will begin, if it is to begin at all. Then, after those “decisions” have been made, RNA polymerase moves along the double helix transcribing the sequence of genetic “letters” into the complementary sequence of an RNA.
   Throughout this productive journey, which is called elongation, the RNA polymerase still keeps good and necessary company. Certain co-activators modify it during its transit of a genetic locus, and these modifications not only enable transcription elongation to begin, but also provide binding sites for yet other proteins that will cooperate throughout the transcription journey.,,,
   Finally — and mirroring all the possibilities surrounding initiation of gene transcription — there are the issues relating to its termination. Again, they are far too many to mention here. Transcription may conclude at a more or less canonical terminus, or at an alternative terminus, or it may proceed altogether past the gene locus, even to the point of overlapping what, by usual definitions, would be regarded as a separate gene farther “downstream”. The cell has great flexibility in determining what, on any given occasion, counts as a gene, or transcriptional unit.
   The last part of the transcribed gene is generally non-protein-coding, but nevertheless contains great significance. Examining this region in a single gene, a research team recently identified “at least 35 distinct regulatory elements” to which other molecules can bind.13 Further regulatory potentials arise from yet more binding sites on the customized “tail” that the cell adds to the RNA immediately upon conclusion of its transcription.
   Proteins and other molecules that bind to the various regulatory elements of the non-protein-coding portion of the transcript do so in a context-sensitive manner, where cell and tissue type, phase of the cell cycle, developmental stage, location of the RNA within the cell, and environmental factors, both intra- and extra-cellular, may all play a role. These converging influences can change the stability of the RNA, change its localization within the cell, and change the efficiency of its translation into protein, among other possibilities.,,,
   What is generally considered the post-transcriptional modulation of gene expression actually begins during transcription proper. A prime example has to do with what happens partly as a result of the pauses during elongation.
   Cells don’t just passively accept the RNAs that emerge from the transcription process, but rather “snip and stitch” them via an elaborate procedure known as RNA splicing. It happens that the cutting out and knitting together of selected pieces typically begins before the RNA is fully transcribed, and the rhythm of pauses during elongation has an important influence upon which pieces form the mature transcript.
   This splicing operation, which is applied to nearly all human RNAs, is performed by the spliceosome, consisting of a few non-protein-coding RNAs and over 300 cooperating proteins, and is hardly less exacting in its requirements than, say, brain surgery.
   For the vast majority of human genes the operation can be performed in different ways, yielding distinct proteins (called isoforms) from a single RNA derived from a single DNA sequence. This is called alternative splicing, and it would be hard to find anything in human development, disease etiology, or normal functioning that is not dependent in one way or another on the effectiveness of this liberty the cell takes with its gene products.
   But RNA splicing is hardly the end of it. Through RNA editing the cell can add, delete, or substitute individual “letters” of the RNA sequence.15 Or, leaving the letters in place, the cell can chemically modify them in any of over one hundred different ways.16 ,,,
   Eventually, a protein-coding RNA needs to be translated into protein. This happens by means of large molecular complexes called “ribosomes”. Just as with gene transcription, there are many associated factors that must work together to bring about the initiation of translation, many that cooperate with the ribosome during translation, and yet others that play a role in modifying, localizing, or otherwise regulating the newly produced protein.
   The overall picture of gene expression is one of unsurveyable complexity in the service of remarkably effective living processes.,,,
   A decisive problem for the classical view of DNA is that “as cells differentiate and respond to stimuli in the human body, over one million different proteins are likely to be produced from less than 25,000 genes”.30 Functionally, in other words, you might say that we have over a million genes.,,,
   per nature institute
7. 7
   News says:

   April 24, 2016 at 10:57 pm

   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.
8. 8
   ellazimm says:

   April 24, 2016 at 11:07 pm

   News #8

   The guy’s terrified someone will think they mean business just because the demo crew has been wiring the building for weeks.

   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.

   And if they didn’t, someone else would have to.

   Why burn down the house when you really just need to redecorate and add on an extension?
9. 9
   News says:

   April 24, 2016 at 11:33 pm

   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.
10. 10
    ellazimm says:

    April 24, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    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
11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    April 25, 2016 at 4:16 am

    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.

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    Abstract
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/.....741100032X

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    The Descent of Darwin (The Deeply Flawed Theological Foundation of Darwinism) – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....34/?MUD=MP

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)
12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    April 25, 2016 at 4:24 am

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

    An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 22, 2012
    Excerpt: “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?” (Sedgwick to Darwin – 1859),,,
    And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,,
    For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-of.html

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science with no Falsification Criteria – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

    A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist – Michael Egnor
    Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God.
    But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.
    I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor.
    – Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/.....egnor.html

    “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.”
    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    “Evolution is a faith based system , it can’t be proven or observed and there is no empirical evidence. Hence it is a religion. State schools are NOT allowed to teach any religious/faith based doctrine. So why is evolution still taught in schools? Hypocrisy at its greatest.”
    Steve Whittington

    “Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!” –
    Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics – A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

    etc.. etc.. etc..
13. 13
    ellazimm says:

    April 25, 2016 at 5:15 am

    BA77 €12

    You tell her ellazimm.

    I do what I can.

    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.

    Oh . . . well . . . guess we can pack up the tents and go home. Anyone need some extra firewood?
14. 14
    hrun0815 says:

    April 25, 2016 at 9:03 pm

    Re #11:

    “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.

    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.
15. 15
    Robert Byers says:

    April 25, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    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!
16. 16
    hrun0815 says:

    April 26, 2016 at 8:52 am

    15 years will not pass before Evolutionism has been replaced by SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
    a paradigm shift if you will.

    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..)
17. 17
    Robert Byers says:

    April 26, 2016 at 10:56 pm

    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.
18. 18
    ellazimm says:

    April 26, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    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
19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    April 27, 2016 at 10:08 am

    “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/
20. 20
    hrun0815 says:

    April 28, 2016 at 7:11 am

    Re #18: yup. Just like I said in #17, this time around it’s really gonna happen (unlike I’m the past 100+ years).