In under six minutes:
In this brief bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, biologist Jonathan Wells discusses science, Darwinism, the fossil record, Lucy, and how the media cover fossil finds. Wells has two PhDs, one from University of California at Berkeley in Molecular and Cellular Biology, and another in Religious Studies from Yale. A Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute, Wells is the author of numerous books, including Icons of Evolution, Zombie Science, The Myth of Junk DNA, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Wells has 2 (count them) PhDs, one in “Religious Studies.”
Neither of them seem to help him with Darwin. He states that, Darwin “didn’t have the evidence” for natural selection, “he just had the argument.” The term “argument” as used by Darwin is similar to a legal argument, where you put out your evidence and demonstrate how it supports your hypothesis or theory. Anyone reading The Origin of Species realizes it is not a rhetorical argument but is filled with example after example of specimens and how observations of these specimens support the notion of natural selection. The Origin is actually an abstract of a much larger work, entitled Natural Selection which was published posthumously in 1975. And, of course, Darwin had many, many years of evidence collecting, in England, Scotland, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and of course the Galapagos Islands. He collected specimens for 5 years while on the voyage of the Beagle. It is estimated according to his notes that he spent 2/3 of the trip on dry land collecting plants and animals. He was considered the world’s expert on beetles, one of the best field biologists and geologists of his day and he was an expert taxidermist.
Chuck Darwin wrote:
Below is what Jonathan Wells actually stated; notice that Wells, contrary to Chuck’s claim, does not mention “natural selection”.
J. Wells:
#2 Origenes
The full title of Darwin’s masterpiece is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. (my emphasis)
I await with bated breath what you think Wells means by “unguided natural processes?” Photosynthesis? Decomposition? Earthquakes? Solar eclipses?
Wells describes the “unguided natural processes” as variation and natural selection in his writings.
So to rewrite
The irony of all this is that the tens of thousands of researchers since Darwin still don’t have the evidence. Otherwise ChuckDarwin would be all over it instead of nit picking.
ChuckDarwin falsely claims that, “Anyone reading The Origin of Species realizes it is not a rhetorical argument but is filled with example after example of specimens and how observations of these specimens support the notion of natural selection.”
Well that is certainly an interesting (false) claim seeing that Adam Sedgwick himself, (Professor of Geology at Cambridge), after reading Darwin’s book, told Darwin himself that, “I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?
As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,,
You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,,”
As well, Richard Owen, who was very friendly to Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, none-the-less, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, stated that Darwin had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
Shoot, you don’t have to take Sedgwick’s and Owen’s word for it. Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted to Asa Gray that “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science”, and that , “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.”
Oh well, so much for ChuckyD’s false claim that Darwin was just doing good old fashioned science, based on the tried and true inductive methodology of Francis Bacon, and that Darwin was not using rhetorical gimmicks when he wrote his book.
Despite the false portrait that ChuckyD is trying to paint of Charles Darwin as being some type of great experimental scientist, the fact of the matter is that Darwin was not a great experimental scientist. Far from it!
His book contained no mathematics, nor did it contain any experimental work by Darwin that might have hinted that his theory of Natural Selection might be valid.
In fact, his college degree was in theology instead of in any area of study that might be considered important for the founding a brand new theory of science.
In fact, Darwin once said that he found higher level mathematics to be quote-unquote “repugnant.”
Again, he called it “repugnant”.
Moreover, contrary to what ChuckyD tried to claim, Darwin’s book was, in fact, full of rhetorical gimmicks.
Specifically, instead of using any compelling mathematics or experimental evidence to try to establish his theory as being valid, Darwin instead extensively used faulty Theological argumentation, (i.e. rhetorical gimmicks), throughout his book to try to make it appear as if his, ahem, ‘theory’ was a better theory than Creation was.
In short, contrary to popular belief, and contrary to what ChuckyD tried to claim, Charles Darwin was certainly NOT one of the “greatest scientists who has ever lived.” Far from it. Darwin was primarily a liberal theologian who practiced bad theology rather than a great scientist who practiced good science.
In fact, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now, via the waiting time problem, cast Natural Selection itself, which was supposedly Charles Darwin’s greatest claim to scientific fame, under the bus.
Natural Selection, contrary to what ChuckyD tried to imply, simply has no experimental nor mathematical support that would establish it as being valid.
In fact, Natural Selection, as it Is used by Darwinists in their literature, functions far more as a fictional rhetorical device than it does as a true explanation for any trait that Darwinists may be trying to explain the origin of.
I could go a lot farther, but I will cut this post short and conclude with,,, Darwin theory is not now, nor has it ever been, a hard and testable science.
Chuckdarwin @1,
And what was Charles Darwin’s degree in?
-Q
@3 Chuckdarwin
Wells said: “Darwin didn’t have the evidence for that, he basically just had the argument.”, and by “that” he referred to (against) “creation by design” and “unguided natural processes explain everything.”
So, to rephrase that: Wells stated that Darwin did not have the evidence against creation by design, and he did not have the evidence that unguided natural processes explain everything.
You erroneously claimed that Wells said: Darwin did not have the evidence for ‘what survives survives’, a.k.a. ‘natural selection’. This is both inaccurate—it is not what Wells said—and ridiculous—it is obvious that ‘what survives survives’ (no evidence is required). What survives survives was known long before Darwin.
Chuckdarwin:
By “support the notion of natural selection” Chuck testifies of his unfounded belief that observed tiny changes explain the whole grand creative process.
“Look!” Chuck screams. “Darwin points out tiny changes in beak size! Therefor he offers evidence for bear to whale evolution!”
Philip Johnson:
Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity. Evos have FAILED to show that it is the designer mimic that Darwin envisioned.
:))) Yep, “evidence collecting”. Poor Darwin today he would be ashamed with his theory .
The evidence that Darwin collected supports variations WITHIN populations. There isn’t any evidence that supported his grand theme.