Using modern science. Would his conclusions be the same? Here:
The participants are Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (yes) vs. Dr. Herman Mays (no)
The topics are from Jeanson’s book, Replacing Darwin: The NEW Origin of Species
“Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental Biology from Harvard University. He serves as a research biologist, author, and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institute for Creation Research.”
Herman Mays: “I have a PhD in evolutionary ecology from the University of Kentucky and studied the mating system of the Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) for my thesis research. I’ve been a postdoctoral fellow, assistant professor and a museum curator in zoology at Cincinnati Museum Center. While at the Cincinnati Museum Center I maintained concurrent adjunct appointments at several local colleges and universities, including Thomas More College, Xavier University and the University of Cincinnati. As of 2014 I am an assistant professor in genetics in the Department of Biological Sciences at Marshall University. … I also like trying my hand at some science writing and public speaking and, to the best of my abilities, conveying the complexities of evolutionary biology to the general public. I’ve participated in the inagural 2010 TEDxCincinnati event as an invited speaker and have delivered informal public talks at the Cincinnati Museum Center and numerous regional science and nature organizations. I also share my interests in science through blogs and social media, including twitter.”
Jeanson, a young Earth creationist, may not have the answers but he has certainly got the right question: Even Darwin would not be a Darwinist today. So what now?
See also: New “fixed” bacterial Tree of Life looks like a cityscape Surely this is only the beginning of major reorganizations. The really exciting news is that splintering lecterns in favor of how very, very fundamental current beliefs are and why everyone must believe them is giving way to specific attempts to address the mess.
At New York Times: Darwin skeptic Carl Woese “effectively founded a new branch of science” (not Darwin’s Tree of Life)
New evolution book represents a “radical” new perspective
6 Replies to “YouTube debate: If Darwin were to examine the evidence today”
Here’s the scenario:
Darwin travels through time to the year 2000 where he is transfixed by a show he sees on television. The name of the show is “The Island of Dr. Moreau”. Just as the movie ends he is brought back to 1858 and feels his concepts are validated by what he just observed.
He goes on to write his book in which we see the first mention of DNA as the thing that changes to bring about diversity. He also thanks Dr. Moreau for his insights into DNA manipulation. 😎
Will this be recorded or do you have to watch it live?
Undoubtedly his theory would be different than the one he originally proposed. After all, his original theory was dependent on a source of heritable variation, but he had no idea how it worked. He knew nothing about DNA and mutations. He new nothing about Mendel’s work. He new nothing about HGT and meiosis. He knew nothing about genetic drift. He knew nothing about epigenetic.
Whether or not he would still accept unguided evolution as the source of the diversity of life is anyone’s guess. I suspect that he would, but that is just supposition.
Rather than asking what Darwin would think if he were presented with current evidence, a more interesting question would be what Darwin would think if he were born in the 1950s and exposed to the current evidence rather than being born in the early 1800s.
A Darwin of today would be an IDist. Even Antony Flew couldn’t fight back the evidence his entire life.
He also couldn’t fight back dementia.
Evidence, R J. It is what ID has and evolutionism lacks.
You have to be demented to think unguided evolution has any scientific merit.