“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 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 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

David, Charlie is right. No labwork or field work has ever supported Darwin except for trivial experiments. If that is not true then enlighten us. That is what we all here are demanding. We love science, true science.jerry_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

David, You are not anachronistic, merely befuddled by a romantic view of the past. Did Darwinian evolution gain its foothold on science through experimentation and labwork, or through speeches, books, and debates?Charlie_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people where the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.David Heddle_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

An entire century and a half, so far? 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?Charlie_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Carlos, "No, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s clear to all people of reason that in a few years, Darwin will be to biology what Marx is to economics, and the shining city on the hill will bring truth and goodness to all places of darkness, ignorance, and decadence Ã¢â‚¬â€ such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Then the terrible and savage tyranny inspired by Voltaire, Kant, and Spinoza shall finally be vanquished!" I'm not as familiar with Wells' specific claims. However, I do think there is one aspect of darwinism/evolution which is drifting towards the chopping block - namely, the materialist and (for some) atheistic interpretations and representations of it, and some popular myths about the certainty of how it all occured. Obviously I don't share the same enthusiasm and skepticism as a lot of people here - to me the real battleground between ID and Darwinism is philosophical more than anything else. I also believe that there are Darwinists who recognize this, and who honestly ARE intimidated by the potential and actual results which ID (and to some extent, theistic evolution) present. Take a look at the patterns of argument. ID is not creationism - not even close. And yet, many of the critics insist on referring to it as exactly that. Even Ken Miller, who happily and eagerly combats ID, just had PZ Myers apply the C-word to him. Dawkins will talk openly of how creationism is fine (as it's easy to dismiss), but he gets agitated when people accept evolution and can find purpose - and potentially, the will of God(s) - within it. To be honest, that's what got me interested in intelligent design. Noticing how, when it was young-earth creationism, Darwinists were content - even happy. They got a kick out of it, because scientifically it was easy to combat, and since the philosophy was tied so strongly to the science being right (or wrong), it was a pleasure. With intelligent design, I noticed a change. What provoked an amused response before now provoked a visceral one. One got the impression that creationism was fine, but finding design in evolution - or worse, finding it compatible with even a looser reading of Genesis - was downright *unfair*. I am convinced that this - the philosophy, the interpretation of the actual facts - is the unspoken 'real issue' with ID and TE, and what many darwinists hate. For many, the question is: What's the point in believing in evolution if it doesn't deliver a wrecking blow to theism?nullasalus_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Agreed -- losing for 150 years. If only Darwinists had the courage to admit it!Carl Sachs_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Culturally Darwinism is losing and always has been. I think that is a rather poor way to try and settle a scientific issue.jmcd_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Jonathan Wells is right -- there's nothing like an exciting new discovery to show that the theoretical framework which motivated it is hopelessly flawed. Even a child could see that. It's obvious that the Darwinists over at Pharyngula are running scared -- they're so scared that they're boasting about how they're not scared, and everyone knows that means that they really are. Clearly. Unfortunately for Dr. Wells, it's not clear what he's going to do once Darwinism is over and done with. Could it be that it's not, and that his repeated pronouncements of its impending demise are his way of being sure he continue to make a quick buck off of the gullible and self-deceived? Obviously, that's impossible -- not even worthy of the consideration it took for me to write it. No, it's clear to all people of reason that in a few years, Darwin will be to biology what Marx is to economics, and the shining city on the hill will bring truth and goodness to all places of darkness, ignorance, and decadence -- such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Then the terrible and savage tyranny inspired by Voltaire, Kant, and Spinoza shall finally be vanquished! Oh, what a glorious day that will be . . .Carl Sachs_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

"Wow" This sounds like all of the Naturalist and their accounts of religious origins. The idea that we need to throw off myth's and only come to the "HARD FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE." Courtesy of Narrative theory!!! Yea for ID!!!rpf_ID_{September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply