Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another think tank now openly questions Darwinism


Get a look at this item:

Readers of Thomas Kuhn’s famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions will know his central thesis that when anomalies and contradictions arise in a reigning scientific theory it creates a crisis out of which new theories emerge to replace the old. We may be seeing the beginnings of such a crisis for modern Darwinism, which appears to have gaps and contradictions that can’t be explained or explained away. The rumbles about the anomalies in Darwinism are ruthlessly suppressed in the media and in academia, but as with all such crises, the problems are impossible to suppress forever, and the doubts are increasingly leaking out.

Steven Hayward, “The Power Line Show, Ep. 138: the Crisis in Darwinism?” at Power Line

So Power Line is interviewing J. Scott Turner, author of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. He’s not an “ID guy” but that doesn’t matter. His book’s title tells you what you need to know. He understands that something is wrong. And his insights into insects’ hive mind are a piece in the puzzle.

Here’s a summary of Turner’s views: “I can remember the day it happened: I could no longer be a Darwinist.”

Recently, the Hoover Institution also interviewed three thinkers on the serious reasons for dissent and this Powerline item seems to fall into the same category.

Hoover and Power Line are conservative outlets, yes. But there was a time when they would hesitate to get involved with criticizing Darwin, for fear of boarding Noah’s Ark.

But the mess is way too big for such worries now. Darwin can supposedly explain how we vote and shop and why we tip at restaurants, the mares who supposedly cause an abortion because they perceive that the stallion will not accept another stallion’s offspring, the Darwinbird of pop science who can control the sex of her offspring by thought processes alone— wouldn’t you be a bit behind the curve if you didn’t ask some questions about the biggest popular science theory of our time?

(The Big Bang is actually the biggest theory but it is unpopular due to theistic implications.)

How about: Isn’t most Darwinism today just pop culture trivia generated on behalf of a science theory that has outlived its usefulness but is, in many places, compelled by law or by official curricula? The dead hand, in other words.

If that is true, here is how we will know: Let’s start looking more closely at information whose significance Darwinians underplay. Just to start with some recent whistles through the mailbox.

– So creationism works— but only for genes? So 2/3 of the time, we have “ de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences, such that homologues genuinely do not exist?” (Many genes occur with no predecessors?)

– Researchers: Plants somehow got “remodelled” 450 mya to grow leaves It looks very much like a plan rather than an accident.

– Ordivician Radiation–Another Strike Against Darwin (PaV) The authors give away the store: the Cambrian Explosion produced a whole host of “body plans,” but few “species”—the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of Darwinian expectations, and, then, 80 million years later a whole host of species ‘explode’ onto the scene. No ‘gradualsim’; just a huge amount of diversification out of nowhere in an incredibly short amount of time. So, in the Cambrian: body plans, but not a lot of species. In the Ordivician: a lot of species, but no new body plans.

See also: Hoover Institution interview with David Berlinski

Mathematicians challenge Darwinian Evolution

The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.


David Gelernter warns against Darwin mob And he’s a Unabomber survivor.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

@1 Seversky
Their views on biology carry as much weight as...
And now is when you explain why. Truthfreedom
It’s not their views on biology, Seversky. It’s their views on evidence, lawyers are quite good at this, so are many academics, and so indeed are the millions of men and women who sit on juries. Belfast
This is real progress! It's nice to see more and more people willing to risk their reputations and come out publicly as an anti-Darwinist! Wow! Maybe there is hope for real science yet. tjguy
As global CO2 levels rise, trees deliberately choose between growing faster and retaining more water. Those in environments with adequate water do the former, while those in drylands do that latter. At least, that's the conclusion of a recently published study of the U of New Hampshire. And we know that bacteria self-mutate to meet environmental challenges. Given that plenty of other living organisms make choices based on conditions, even those without a brain, I'd be slower to mock Turner as a complete idiot. Intentionality & adaptation divide life from non-life. anthropic
vmahuna @ 3 Evolutionists love the idea so much that they have a hard time letting go. BobRyan
"Once I had abandoned the Darwinian idea as unsustainable, the logic of what was left pointed inexorably to the startling conclusion that living things evolved in a certain way, not because of blind genetic luck, but because, in a deep sense, they wanted to evolve that way. To put it as an example, dinosaurs evolved into birds because some dinosaur lineages wanted to fly. And so, they set about, quite intentionally, evolving to fly." This is the STUPIDEST, most CHILDISH "theory" of Evolution I've ever heard anyone propose. So we are to believe that a bear woke up one morning and decided he wanted to be a whale, so he turned into one. This is the logic and science of Fairy tales. Even Darwinism makes more sense than "Turnerism". vmahuna
Their views on biology carry about us much weight as Richard Dawkins' views on the law.
And yet Richard Dawkins' views on biology are that of a petulant child. Just look at the drivel he says about having 51% of an eye is better than 50%- that is the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. If it takes 100% of an eye to have any vision neither 50% or 51% will give any advantage. ET
This "think tank" seems to be a group of conservative lawyers and academics. Their views on biology carry about us much weight as Richard Dawkin's views on the law. Seversky

Leave a Reply