Intelligent Design

An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation

Spread the love

Adam Sedgwick was a class act and his November 24, 1859 letter to Charles Darwinis a classic. In the 1128 word missive the aging professor of geology at Cambridge University—after reading Darwin’s massive work in less than a week amidst his many other duties—managed to pack several cogent criticisms and profound observations of evolutionary thought.  Read more

3 Replies to “An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a related note Dr. Hunter:

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

    And exactly where Darwinism fails to have any rational basis in science, (“how came it about?” – Sedgwick), is precisely where Intelligent Design does have a solid basis:

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://vimeo.com/32148403

    further notes:

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40981.html

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences – astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

    “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
    ? Jerry A. Coyne – evolutionist – professor at the University of Chicago

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    Teleological language is rampant in the evolutionary literature.

    The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    its fine for this man to make good points but hje and evolutionists use the study of geology to make case in biology.
    Geology has nothing to do with investigation of nature by biological research.
    Its been a careless seduction of illogic to see sequences of biological data points in the fossil record, true or not about dates, as evidence for or against evolutionary hypothesis.
    Whether asserting this evolving into that or denying the evolution of this into that (Id research on the Cambrian explosion) it is all a grand error of illogic.
    Biological concxlusions must be based on serious investigation of biological processes and done by biological researchers whether schooled or self taught.
    Geology has nothing to contribute to biological EVIDENCE, based on the scientific method, to conclusions about biological history.
    These cheap bridges to truth by looking at segregated stratas holding frozen creatures in time has been and will in retrospect be seen as a reason for why evolution continued in its strength despite the poverty of evidence.

    Even if telling the tale of evolution it still would not be biological evidence to be included in making the case for evolution.
    Just a side dish of a coincident unrelated data of evidence.

    If i’m wrong show why??
    A Christmas gift from YEC Santa.

Leave a Reply