Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Royal Society Meet: No “fisticuffs”; serious questions smothered instead

arroba Email

More meetings planned. Snatches from science writer Carl Zimmer at Quanta:

While Noble was struggling to respond, Shuker went back to the paper on an iPad. And now he read the abstract in a booming voice.

‘Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks,’” Shuker said. He put down the iPad. “So it’s a perfect, beautiful example of rapid neo-Darwinian evolution,” he declared.

Shuker distilled the feelings of a lot of skeptics I talked to at the conference. The high-flying rhetoric about a paradigm shift was, for the most part, unwarranted, they said. Nor were these skeptics limited to the peanut gallery. Several of them gave talks of their own. More.

Goodness, the relief that must have been felt when Darwinians (“skeptics,” if you please) asserted their creed again. Whatever happened, “natural selection” (whatever that is) did it.

There will ,in fact, be more meetings:

“This is likely the first of many, many meetings,” Laland told me. In September, a consortium of scientists in Europe and the United States received $11 million in funding (including $8 million from the John Templeton Foundation) to run 22 studies on the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.

How much will Templeton, calling the shots, influence what is discussed and by whom? Templeton funds BioLogos, an elaborate attempt to make Christianity safe for Darwinism, or so it seems. Perhaps it will make science safe for Darwinism too.

Royal SocietyDarwinism is now somewhat like multi-party political scandals: The failures are well-documented but the creed is beyond evaluation by evidence-based reasoning or remedy via reform. Eventually, something happens.

See also: Suzan Mazur: Amazing that the Royal Society meeting happened at all. The main goal of Darwin’s cronies will be to see that nothing like what it might have been ever happens.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

No paradigm shift, then? Ah, well, better luck next time. Come on. Not enough funerals at this point. Also way beaucoup taxpayer funding controlled by people of your faith going to support that materialist faith. More funerals are on the way though, including yours. After that, better luck next time around. groovamos
The paradigm shift is occurring every day biology researchers are making new "surprising"/"unexpected" discoveries. Biology itself is going through the paradigm shift, regardless of whether the establishment politburo agitprop likes it or not. Every day in science research is bad news for the outdated Neo-Darwinian ideas. For example, read posts starting @2218 in this link: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-621099 Notice the wrong presuppositions being trashed. That's just one example. In this forum a politely dissenting professor from a Canadian university -who apparently attended the recent RS meeting in London- answered incorrectly a simple question related to the above mentioned posts. It is recorded here. Available upon request. :) Dionisio
No paradigm shift, then? Ah, well, better luck next time. Seversky
News and all, Happy Thanksgiving! James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. bornagain77
Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks ...
Natural selection does not explain the rewiring of anything. Darwinism holds that the going out of existence of X, explains the existence of Y. However elimination (a.k.a. “natural selection”) explains only why some things are not, not why some things are.
Natural selection is a sieve. It creates nothing, as is so often assumed; it only sifts. It retains only what variability puts into the sieve. Whence the material comes that is put into it, should be kept separate from the theory of its selection. How the struggle for existence sifts is one question; how that which is sifted arose is another. [Hugo de Vries]
If natural selection is a process of elimination, then existent organisms are the ones that got away. Instead of being created by ‘natural elimination’, exactly the opposite is true: they are “untouched” by ‘natural elimination’. Existent organisms are those organisms on which natural selection has precisely no bearing whatsoever. They are the undiluted products of chance.
. . . it is indeed the animal or plant breeder who selects certain superior individuals to serve as the breeding stock of the next generation. But, strictly speaking, there is no such agent involved in natural selection. What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination. [Ernst Mayr, ‘What Evolution is’, (117)]
CHANCE ALONE," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation." [Berlinski]
bornagain77 at 1: They believe in euthanasia, not warfare. News
There very well might have been 'fisticuffs' if Dr. Axe had been allowed to speak at the Royal Society meet: :)
podcast - "Douglas Axe On His Return to Cambridge U for the Beyond Materialism Conference. " https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2016-11-23T09_48_02-08_00

Leave a Reply