Culture Darwinism Evolution

Zombies march for science

Spread the love

Again.

In his new book Zombie Science, biologist Jonathan Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Wells gave a presentation about Zombie Science at the book’s national launch party recently in Seattle. Watch as Wells explores a new wave of icons walking the halls of science while putting some familiar corpses back in the grave. New topics include DNA, the human eye, vestigial organs, antibiotic resistance, and cancer. Looking past the current zombie outbreak, Wells offers a hopeful vision of science free from the clutches of materialist dogma. Wells himself is something of an iconoclast, railing against the tyranny of science’s Darwin-only advocates. His first book, Icons of Evolution, became an international hit by dismantling the outdated and underwhelming “proofs” of evolution that have littered textbooks for decades. For doing so, he was attacked by Darwin’s defenders and became one of the most hated figures of the intelligent design movement.

See also: Defending Darwinism: The Stumpire strikes back. This is breathtaking in its duplicity: “If the evolutionary gene is understood more broadly, and the notions of environment and phenotype are defined accordingly, current evolutionary theory does not require a major conceptual change in order to incorporate the mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance.” Understanding it the new way is the most major conceptual change since Origin of Species. And long overdue.

18 Replies to “Zombies march for science

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    It seems that young “Luke” Wells has missed that exhaust port again. Darth Winism finds his lack of faith disturbing. Maybe he should turn off his targeting computer put his trust in The Force.

  2. 2

    The debunked icons of evolution help a/mats tell their creation story. No surprise that they remain in some textbooks.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life or the Universe. There is no a/mat “creation story”. We don’t know how it all began.

    It must be nice to have a creation story for which no one requires evidence or a detailed account of how it all came about.

  4. 4
    J-Mac says:

    Seversky,

    The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life or the Universe. There is no a/mat “creation story”. We don’t know how it all began.

    If the origin of life and the universe turns out to be the property of some creative power or energy…say…dark energy, will the evolution (whatever that means) remain to be a non-random process?

    If you don’t know how it all began, what scientific evidence convinces you the most that ‘There is no a/mat “creation story’?
    IOW, what scientific evidence convinces you the most that origin of life didn’t need a superior to human ID and came about by chance? What evidence convinces you the most that life “just happen”?

    It must be nice to have a creation story for which no one requires evidence or a detailed account of how it all came about.

    Well, all you have to do is provide us with evidence how life came to be without superior to humans ID.
    Just make sure that your
    supposed evidence doesn’t turn out be a nice story without any evidence whatsoever you just chose and prefer to hear…

    We are all ears…

  5. 5
    rvb8 says:

    Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church, formerly headed by the now deceased Sun Myung Moon.

    This in no way detracts from his right to disagree with evolution, it does however bring into question his impartiality, as the teachings of that church are indeed anti-biological evolution.

    Wells has said: “Father’s (Sun Myung Moon) 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.”

    Well I’m sure we all remember the Moonies shoulder to shoulder with Solidarity, Lech Walesa, Pope John Paul, and Reagan, when the Soviet state fell.

    No, wait, they had no part in that demise.

    The man’s arrogance is breathtaking given the fact that beyond his so called church, and several blogs, no one knows him.

    He’s right up there with Suzan Mazur, O’Leary, Dembski and co.

  6. 6
    J-Mac says:

    rvb8

    “…This in no way detracts from his right to disagree with evolution, it does however bring into question his impartiality, as the teachings of that church are indeed anti-biological evolution…

    What’s your point then?

    Shouldn’t the science be able to defend itself? Why are you whining then? All you have to do is provide evidence that Wells is wrong… again…

    But is there such evidence other then speculations by the deeply devout to the faith of materialism?

    You see, when one commits himself to science fiction, then everything seems to make sense…

  7. 7
    tribune7 says:

    Science is the endeavor to find the consistencies of nature. It’s showing that given this, this and this, this always happens.

    If one cannot show that given this, this and this, this always happens but insist that this happened anyway, one is not practicing science but exercising a faith.

    Faith is not bad, it’s actually necessary, but denying that one is exhibiting faith while doing so is delusion and that is bad.

    To practice faith and call it science is actually anti-science.

  8. 8
    J-Mac says:

    tribune7,

    Science is the endeavor to find the consistencies of nature.

    Really? I always thought that science is the endeavor to find the truth wherever it may lead…

    What if the the endeavor of science leads to the inconsistency in nature that can’t be explained by that science? Are you going to discard it because it doesn’t fit your presupposed bias?

  9. 9
    tribune7 says:

    J-Mac,

    If you need a qualification, I’ll make it “natural science”.

    However, “science” has become almost universally accepted to mean the rejection of the supernatural so the qualifier is not really needed.

    If one should point out to the National Academy of Sciences that theology is the queen of sciences one will get funny looks.

    Which means that natural science i.e. science as is popularly understood cannot reveal all truths.

    Can natural science address the supernatural? Does that mean the supernatural does not exist?

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    J-Mac – no, only mathematics can guarantee that it has told you the truth (even when working on Lie theory, apparently).

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    Hi Trib, long time. KF

  12. 12
  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    J-Mac @

    If the origin of life and the universe turns out to be the property of some creative power or energy…say…dark energy, will the evolution (whatever that means) remain to be a non-random process?

    Until we have some understanding of the nature of this putative “creative power or energy”, it’s impossible to say. The only random part of evolution is that, while genetic mutations can be caused by a number of events, they do not appear to happen so as to affect the course of evolution in any particular way.

    If you don’t know how it all began, what scientific evidence convinces you the most that ‘There is no a/mat “creation story’?

    The absence of an a/mat creation story convinces me that there is no a/mat creation story. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one necessarily, just that we don’t know of it yet.

    IOW, what scientific evidence convinces you the most that origin of life didn’t need a superior to human ID and came about by chance? What evidence convinces you the most that life “just happen”?

    As I’ve said before, I don’t know that an advanced non-human intelligence was not responsible. The problem is that, not only do we have no evidence that such a being exists but that, even if we did, it would not answer the ultimate question of origins. The question we would then have to ask is what is the origin of this being and the knowledge they must possess.

    Well, all you have to do is provide us with evidence how life came to be without superior to humans ID.
    Just make sure that your supposed evidence doesn’t turn out be a nice story without any evidence whatsoever you just chose and prefer to hear…

    I wish I had to offer. I don’t know of anything that sounds likely to me so for the moment it is a complete mystery.

    There appears to be a large number of creation stories that people around the world have told at various times. If there is one that you prefer, perhaps you could explain why you chose it over all the others.

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    tribune7 @ 9

    Can natural science address the supernatural? Does that mean the supernatural does not exist?

    Before we can answer that we need to decide what we mean by “supernatural”. Is it a coherent concept?

    For example, most people think of ghosts as supernatural entities. Suppose that science found that although they were very elusive and difficult to detect – like neutrinos, say – they did exist and had a nature that could be observed and described. At that point, would they still be supernatural or would they have become a natural phenomenon? And if they were now a natural phenomenon what does “supernatural” mean other than currently unknown? What conceptual purpose is served by calling them “supernatural” at all?

  15. 15
    tribune7 says:

    Seversky, the definition for supernatural would be something not subject to the laws of nature. If neutrinos are subject to the laws of nature i.e. predictable consistencies then they would be natural. If not, well . . .

    So are neutrinos subject to predictable consistencies?

    And remember, the nub. If the supernatural exists then the supernatural exists and while it can be addressed via reason it can’t be subject to a expected consistencies in a lab.

  16. 16
    rvb8 says:

    J-Mac,

    I’m not ‘whining’. I’m pointing out that Wells’s agenda is to bring down Darwinism; he said it. He said he wants to do this because ‘Father’ (Sun Myung Moon; how are you with this particular Jesus figure BTW), blessed him, and the Moonies have had previous sucess in bringing down Communism.

    But they didn’t. Wells lied. It was well known historical forces, persons, a religion (Catholicism), and organisations, (unions), that brought down the communist regime.

    Wells, and his co-religionists were nowhere to be seen.

    Now Wells wants to repeat his non-sucess by bringinig down a non-existant science Darwinism; we call it evolutionary biology.

    You say, ‘let the science speak’. I couldn’t agree more. Please produce some, or stop this ID whining.

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    tribune7 @ 15

    And remember, the nub. If the supernatural exists then the supernatural exists and while it can be addressed via reason it can’t be subject to a expected consistencies in a lab.

    Anything which exists as something other than formless chaos, that has a form, order, pattern, arrangement, structure – whatever you want to call it – which persists over time, must be sustained as such by what we call laws or regularities. Even God as an ordered being must be so constrained. The same must be true of any so-called supernatural entity. To persist as an ordered being it must also subject to laws or regularities. That makes it susceptible to investigation by direct or indirect observation and reason. That being the case, again I ask, what purpose is served by calling it supernatural?

  18. 18
    groovamos says:

    RVB: a non-existant science Darwinism;

    Gosh you know they’re getting hard up when they reach for something like that. But since they can’t get enough of this website you know they are either desperate, fascinated or highly challenged. Or up against the wall.

    So ‘Darwinism’ many times the way we use it is short for ‘neo-Darwinism’, that so-called ‘modern synthesis’ that keeps having to fit a changing picture of reality into the Darwinist straightjacket.

    Funny thing how you can Google ‘Darwinism’ and you come up with thousands of links about ‘science’ or ‘theory’.

    Hey RVB, do it dude, Google it. Here is one hit from the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Darwinism, theory of the evolutionary mechanism propounded by Charles Darwin”

    So go sulk somewhere until you can come up with something else to complain about on here.

Leave a Reply