Christian Darwinism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Baylor U doc not Darwinist. But sky didn’t fall?

Spread the love

A reader writes to ask why Dr. Joseph Kuhn didn’t get the same treatment: at Baylor University Medical Center for a 2012 article, “Dissecting Darwinism,” as Bill Dembski got at Baylor U in 2000?:

William Dembski was already a research fellow for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute when he was approached by Baylor University President Robert Sloan in 1996. Sloan had read some of Dembski’s work and thought that Dembski could help with his project of promoting the integration of faith and learning on campus.

But the honeymoon ended when the Polanyi Center established its website in January 2000. When “other groups with evolution-bashing agendas began linking up their Websites … An e-mail frenzy at Baylor spread to other schools. Dembski “was subject to dismissive comments that he was a ‘stealth creationist.’” As Gordon has often pointed out, the Michael Polanyi Center never endorsed the connections from other websites. More.

That curious reader might also have mentioned Bob Marks: and the Evolutionary Informatics Lab:

The lab used to be one of Bob’s several labs at Baylor, but when he was interviewed back in 2007 by Casey Luskin for a Discovery Institute podcast, it became public knowledge that the lab’s research was related to ID. That was a no-no as far as then-Baylor-president John Lilley was concerned. In consequence, Bob was told by his dean (at Lilley’s instance) to disassociate the lab from Baylor by removing that work from his space on the Baylor server. When he refused, the Baylor administration did it for him.

Here’s Kuhn’s conclusion from the 2012 paper in Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent):

John Hunter and Charles Darwin were limited to gross observation of physical appearance. The human cell appeared to be a glob of jelly under a primitive microscope. Both scientists observed mutation and adaptation, which clearly exist today. For almost 150 years following their proposal, thousands of articles and biology departments across the world made observations based on the paradigm of random mutation and natural selection to account for changes within species. These changes are uncontested truths. However, regarding the origin of the species and life (DNA), even Darwin commented, “If it could be shown that complex systems could not arise by small sequential steps, then my theory would completely break down.” Irreducibly complex systems involving thousands of interrelated specifically coded enzymes do exist in every organ of the human body. At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA. As new theories emerge that explain the origin of life, the inevitable emotional accusations of heresy and ignorance are not surprising in a period of scientific revolution. It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm. More. public access – Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, Dissecting Darwinism, Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2012 Jan; 25(1): 41–47.PMCID: PMC3246854

Well, enquiring reader, a dozen years is a long time. Even five years is a long time. The way things are going, Christian Darwinists may be the only ones left.

Or is that too ironic?

See also: New findings on evolution and probability


The Royal Society’s fall “Rethink Evolution” meet

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Baylor U doc not Darwinist. But sky didn’t fall?

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    It sounds like another attack on important points in evolutionism.
    Perhaps this guy is not so feared ass the others or for other reasons he is okay.
    Is it progress? Is there more to come? YES!
    Every time one turns around someone else finds the evolutionary hypothesis not making scientific sense.
    If it is wrong then it would be this way.
    If not wrong then why does this dude think it is? Whats his problem?

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    News, no really is a Darwinist anymore.

    Unless they think they are arguing with a creationist. Then it becomes convenient.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    I think it’s clear that Bill Demski was involved in much more than just publishing an article: he was caught up in a fight between the president and faculty of Baylor, and his “Waterloo” press release was inflammatory.

  4. 4
    Virgil Cain says:

    Bob, People have a right, nay, a duty, to push back, ie fight, when faced with nonsensical charges.

  5. 5
    Yarrgonaut says:

    If I may, I expect to see a lot more of this in the future. As more and more non-random mechanisms for evolution are discovered, and the gaps where randomness can be invoked become smaller and smaller, IDers will continue to come out of the woodwork. Notice Meyer 2004 was met with a frenzy, while peer reviewed research critical of Darwinism and supportive of ID now doesn’t get that much pushback. They seem to just accept that more and more research is being published. I think this is important progress.

Leave a Reply