Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Why Darwinism Is Doomed”

William Dembski
September 27, 2006
Darwinism, Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Leave it to Jonathan Wells to tell it like it is:

. . . The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last. . . .

Source: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166

Comments
Carlos, "Which in turn raises the question as to whether or not we have access to truth through means other than science. For it could turn out, as I read 37, that ID is true but that science could never find this out. " This happens to be the philosophy I lean towards, personally. Though I'm still sympathetic to ID attempts to find proof of such.nullasalus
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Which in turn raises the question as to whether or not we have access to truth through means other than science. For it could turn out, as I read 37, that ID is true but that science could never find this out.Carl Sachs
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
My view is that labels of apologetic or science distract from the fundamental issue, namely, whether ID is true. I personally think ID science, but if it doesn't fit someone's definition, I respect that. At the end of the day, the question of Design still remains indpendent of what label is affixed to. The question isn't so much whether ID is science, so much as whether it is true.scordova
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
27 . . . if ID is really a powerful apologetic for theism, as I think it is, then some of these activities make perfect sense—but even then they should only be done if ID is accurately portrayed as an apologetic, and not a science under siege.
I find this an interesting approach, because of the explicit contrast between apologetics and science. From what I've seen, based on interacting with ID enthusiasts here, a lot of the appeal of ID lies in that it refuses to make this very distinction -- between doing good science and doing good apologetics. And this is precisely what one would expect from an attempt to continue the tradition of natural theology or natural religion. Would be accurate to say that ID is "biology as apologetics", and in that sense is supposed to serve as a bridge between science and theology?Carl Sachs
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Here is what I respect about Bill Dembski:
Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories even as real numbers maintain the conceptual soundness of the applied mathematician’s calcuations. Christ has assumed the fullness of our humanity and entered every aspect of our reality. He thereby renders all our studies the study of himself.
Now consider this from Wells' article:
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last. If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.
IDists often appeal to common sense. Well, it's my turn now. Is there anyone who cannot tell that one author is sincere and the other is intent upon spinning till he pukes populism? By the way, am I the only one for whom Well's last sentence evokes an image of Yoda?Tom English
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
jpark320, Thanks for your honesty. I really appreciate it. And your description of what a wide range of views there are among IDists is right on the money. By the way, use <blockquote> and </blockquote> for quotes.Tom English
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Lindaslater says [quote]As somebody who is a bit of an outsider here - I would offer my opinion that, yes, IDers do have a responsibility here. If you are so adamant that Darwinism is a failed theory then you not only have to show why, but provide at least the beginnings of a plausible framework to replace it. The problem I have is that the current set of hypotheses (e.g., specified complexity et al) beg more questions than they currently answer unless they can be understood in the context of a larger holistic cosmology.[/quote] I do have a framework, [and I'm not being sarcastic here] its called Christianity. I will agree with here that just saying "yes, there is a designer" will put you into more than the realm of biological sciences. However, ppl have offered there own frameworks including Theistic Evolution, universal ancestry, episodes of special creation, Dr. Davison here seems to have one of his own, etc. I think to create an atheistic framework for the ID will be difficult - NOT saying that atheists can not see that nature displays patterns that are best described by design nor design an ID framework- but they'd have a harder time dealing with what to make of the rest of the Evolutionary theory. Christians whether Old or Young Earth wouldn't need to change up there frameworks - just add to it as we have been IDers since the beginning of time - not to mention everything screams out the existence of God. I am one of those Dr. Dembski "recruited" ID and he has the best foundational statement for an ID framework that I can find: [Quote] Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory , even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ. Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories even as real numbers maintain the conceptual soundness of the applied mathematician's calcuations. Christ has assumed the fullness of our humanity and entered every aspect of our reality. He thereby renders all our studies the study of himself. [/quote] "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology" pg. 210 Like it or not, you gotta admit I did give you framework :) [Crazy thing is that its the Truth ;)]jpark320
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Linda Slater: I would suggest that there’s good and bad in all the churches and that this is not the venue to condemn them or to question a man’s motives based on his faith. Our ID arguments should stand on their merits and not on the source of their inspiration. And speaking of “cults”, let us remember that the historic church burned at the stake tens of thousands for “heresy” and if that were still going on I dare say any of us would escape (this of course doesn’t let the secularists off the hook, for in the space of a few decades they dispatched their tens of millions). So I don’t care where a guy’s coming from, if he’s making a good ID argument then right on, my friend! Some advice to the factionally sensitive: “… Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”Rude
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Linda Slater As far as I am concerned, Darwinian evolution was replaced long ago with Bergian evolution. Referring to both ontogeny and phylogeny - "Neither in the one nor n the other is there room for chance." Leo Berg , Nomogenesis, page 134 "Hereditary variations are limited in number and they develop in determined direction." "Evolution is in a large measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments." "Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another" ibid page 406 Got that? Write that down. I only wish he had used the past tense. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
David H.: It's a pain to remove people by hand, so I instructed my research assistant to do it. Since he hasn't gotten around to it yet, I went ahead and did it myself. I'm frankly surprised that you have problems with my time management inasmuch as you've never given any evidence of having read or understood my technical work. Beyond that, what I do in the way of public lecturing and popular work is aimed at recruiting talent to the ID movement. For the record, it's working!William Dembski
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Linda Slater: "I find it curious that ID supporters are so keen to associate with themselves with a person who is a practicing member of the Unification church, particularly since he is quite public about how his religious aims influence his research" I've never seen him invoke the Rev Moon in any of his arguments. Have you? I don't give a rat's rear what his motivations are. All that matters is the products of the research. Either it stands up to rational scrutiny or it doesn't. Do you accept or disregard Richard Dawkin's scientific views because he is a flaming atheist? I didn't think so.mike1962
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Rude wrote: "Linda Slater, “Of course I don’t want to commit the genetic fallacy here,” but you just did! The last thing we should want is to link ID to some kind of Christian correctness and subject its practitioners to the eagle eye of the cult watchers. If you ask me–and you don’t–I see kookiness in all the denominations. " I think the difference is that a) The Unification church is a cult (not just another Christian denomination) and by some accounts a dangerous and harmful one b) Wells has himself admitted that he is pursuing his scientific career at the experience purpose of 'Father'. Here's what Wells himself said: ""Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." Based on this there is some basis to belief that Wells's scientific research is not based on science for science sake but is driven by a specific religious agenda. There is also some reasonably good evidence to suggest that the Unification church is not devoid of corruption and unethical practices. Of course whether Wells himself is guilty of this is another matter, but since he belongs to this instutition there is certainly reason to be wary of his ultimate motives and modus operandi.Linda Slater
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Oh brother. Prevailing theories are not supplanted by mantra. You can say “Darwinism is doomed” a gazillion times but there is only one way ID (or anything else) will displace it as a scientific theory: when ID proposes experiments, performs them, obtains results that support the ID hypothesis, and publishes their findings. Until then it is just preaching-to-the-choir playtime. If all this energy were invested in actually doing science then, regardless of the outcome, at least something of value would have resulted. If you really think ID is science then abandon the lecture circuits, abandon legal tactics, stop showing up on places like CSPAN, write much less for the nonscientific press and nonscientific audiences than for professional journals, stop whining about conspiracies in the funding agencies and among atheistic scientists in general, and get off your butts and do some science. Of course, if ID is really a powerful apologetic for theism, as I think it is, then some of these activities make perfect sense—but even then they should only be done if ID is accurately portrayed as an apologetic, and not a science under siege.David Heddle
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Linda Slater, “Of course I don’t want to commit the genetic fallacy here,” but you just did! The last thing we should want is to link ID to some kind of Christian correctness and subject its practitioners to the eagle eye of the cult watchers. If you ask me--and you don't--I see kookiness in all the denominations.Rude
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
jpark320 wrote: "In response to Linda Slater, but not directly at her… Is it IDers responsibility to come up with a sweeping comprehensive theory like she and many like her want? " As somebody who is a bit of an outsider here - I would offer my opinion that, yes, IDers do have a responsibility here. If you are so adamant that Darwinism is a failed theory then you not only have to show why, but provide at least the beginnings of a plausible framework to replace it. The problem I have is that the current set of hypotheses (e.g., specified complexity et al) beg more questions than they currently answer unless they can be understood in the context of a larger holistic cosmology.Linda Slater
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Linda, I don't care how kooky I find his religious beliefs. I judge his scientific arguements without regard for his religion.todd
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
David Heddle: I don't like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I'm now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.William Dembski
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
One more thing - I think the article by Wells is extremely misleading. It implies that the recent discovery of the brain gene as stated in nature is the only gene ever discovered to do with the brain. That is clearly not the case -- this particular gene is associated specifically with brain size. There have been numerous other studies where many, many other genes have been associated with brain function. Here's one study: http://www.rx-gen.com/downloads/news/Brain%20Development%20PRL.doc, although it is easy to find others. I guess my other point is I find it curious that ID supporters are so keen to associate with themselves with a person who is a practicing member of the Unification church, particularly since he is quite public about how his religious aims influence his research. Of course I don't want to commit the genetic fallacy here, but put it this way: would ID supporters be quite so keen to allow him to speak on religious matters in their pulpits at their churches?Linda Slater
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Linda, I think Mike Gene described ID as a modifying hypothesis to the overall ToE, or something like that. The solid framework is current science. One need not rely upon darwinism to view the inner workings of the cell. If our investigations into life and the history of life are framed by ID, it will not change the microscopes, just the observers! We might begin to fill some gaps when enough investigators start looking the right way, therefore in the right places and see the next great technological leap forward... Consider anti-biotic resistance, for instance. As we unlock more secrets of the genetic code, would we not have a better chance of predicting what kinds of mutations are likely and perhaps designi antibiotics more effectively?todd
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
In response to Linda Slater, but not directly at her... Is it IDers responsibility to come up with a sweeping comprehensive theory like she and many like her want? Don't we (for now) just want to exchange the RM + NS w/ teleology? Too me that seems like a big enough deal and unfair to ask for way more. Once we win that, than we can go onto formulate what role ID has played in the biology. Can someone link an article about this topic?jpark320
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
If Darwinism is dying (although saying so doesn't necessarily make it so), what exactly is it going to be replaced with? My limited understanding of ID is that it consists of various hypotheses around specificed complexity, irreducible complexity and the design explanatory filter. What ID does not yet seem to provide is when, how, and what kind of guided design was introduced (there seem to be different ideas here about 'frontloading' as opposed to continuous intervention, for example). Furthermore, I'm not sure that the contributors to these pages yet have common agreement on whether ID encompasses common descent (some seem to and some don't), micro-evolution or natural selection. What seems to be lacking to me is a complete and thorough end-to-end hypothesis (let alone theory) of the role ID has supposed to have played in abogenesis and subsequent development. In other words if you like a playback of the last 4.5 million years from an ID perspective - sure I expect some of it might be speculative, but shouldn't it be possible to at least infer some of this by now? Perhaps this exists and I'm just not aware of it? Frankly, it seems to me ID is currently a miscellaneous grab-bag of ideas, hypothesis and speculations but with no solid framework to hang them from. I know a lot about what ID is against but I'm often at a complete loss to know what ID is for.Linda Slater
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Darwinism is doomed indepent of questions of they ID hypothesis. I will blog on the following issue of why Darwinism cannot be science, but in brief, in all the physical scientific theories out there, fundamental quantities like mass, velocity, etc. can be measured. The fundamental quantity in Darwinism is fitness, which, as Lewontin and Wagner admit can't be rigorously defined, therefore can't be measured!!! What blasted theory can claim to be as well established as gravity and yet it can't even measure its most fundamental quantity. Darwinism doesn't deserve a place on the table with real science. John Barrow was right when he told Dawkins, "Richard, you're not even a scientist."scordova
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Quick, before DaveScot jumps me. I did not mean that the point of the ID movement is a fight against establishment science for its own sake, but that establishment science sems to be mistaken about fundamental principles conacerning origins. Mistaken about a view it has been tirelessly promoting for 150 years.kvwells
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Carlos, What I find ironic is that here we have new evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things 'appear' designed - and yet the Theory of Evolution clings to stochasticism! Why isn't the ToE changing more to fit Dr Davison's views? Why do so many refuse to let go of materialist assumptions when the simplest explanation is design? It is as if nature shouts "Planned!" from the cosmos down to the micros - yet so many prominent minds refuse to even entertain the idea - why is that? I see no other explanation than a pre-existing commitment to a philosophical view, one adherants hold is superior to the metaphysical superstitions of the ignorant masses while refusing to admit its own metaphysical nature! Such hubris and arrogance is the reason Darwinism is doomed, nevermind the hopelessness of the Materialist paradigm.todd
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
“Remember: if it’s inconsistent with truth, then it’s not science.” Carl Sachs Now, if it is true that there is no confirming experimental evidence for new species by NDE, then an appeal to authority or popularity won't help the Darwinist. If the comment about science/truth is intended to be sarcastic, then okay. However, I think we must all admit that what science is or isn't and, (limited to human perspective) what truth is or isn't, is interminably up for grabs. Science is not the Truth, it is the uneasy consensus of a group of professional experts. This seems to be the point of the ID movement. By the way, I heard somwhere the the universe might be actually expanding. The implications of this bothers me, and it's getting increasingly difficult to find a large group of professional experts who will reassure me that its not 'true'.kvwells
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Carlos, It is not the number of changes, but the nature and results of those changes. I'm sure you've heard the narrative, that all of life has evolved from perhaps a single, very simple life form. The claim that this is the result of lots of little changes is completely undemonstrated by labwork and experimentation. When Darwinists have tried to demonstrate such changes we get admissions, consistent with Dobhzansky's, such as Nilsson's: "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.Charlie
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs, You said: "Remember: if it’s inconsistent with truth, then it’s not science." I couldn't agree more. Science is not just labwork and fieldwork though that is definitely part of it. One person put it, as "Inference, supported by the facts" and I will accept that.jerry
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
David: Direct me to the research which has confirmed that Darwinian mechanisms are responsible for the past appearance of true biological novelty.Scott
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
"How long did the belief in and search for the philosopher’s stone prevail before being replaced, fecund a field though it had been, by modern chemistry?" But the alchemists weren't losing all that time, the way the Darwinists have been. "No labwork or field work has ever supported Darwin except for trivial experiments. " Well put -- after all, it's one thing to accept that small changes could have happened over a small amount of time, but only a fool would think that lots of changes could have happened over a lot of time. "We love science, true science." And that means test-tubes and lab-coats! If there are no test-tubes and lab-coats, it's not science; that's obvious. Then it's just stamp collecting in the name of a nefarious plot to destroy the human spirit. Remember: if it's inconsistent with truth, then it's not science.Carl Sachs
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
nullasalus, Well said. I am certainly not a creationist and not necessarily enamored with ID as a separate scientific discipline but I am certainly anit-Darwin. Manily, because I am pro science.jerry
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply