Readers may recall Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in connection with the carnivorous plant that tried to eat commenter Nick Matzke (or something like that anyway; the details are here, here, here, here, and here).
Here’s an interview with him in Diplomacy Post on how “Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings”:
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a prominent name in the science world, and until his retirement in 2008, continued to contribute to the science world with his studies at Max-Planck Institute. His articles were published in various articles and is in the board of a peer-reviewed scientific journal Bio-Complexity. He was interviewed by many publications including Der Spiegel and in addition to attending seminars and conferences on a frequent basis as a sought-after speaker, he has written several books on the evidence pointing to flaws in evolutionary theory, and also one about how the science world is pressured into believing in Darwinist theories.
…
2) You explain that Neo-Darwinism makes falsifiable claims. What exactly does this mean and could you give us some examples of those claims?
Well, a scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable, that is, there should be criteria according to which a hypothesis can be disproved and thus be rejected as false. As to the origin of species, Darwin had asserted that evolution proceeds by “infinitesimally small inherited variations”, “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties” and “insensibly fine steps”, “for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps”. This is also the credo of most modern evolutionists (neo-Darwinians) and, in principle, even of the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory (details are given in the books mentioned above).
However, the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of paleontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet any scientific proof against neo-Darwinism is principally rejected by its adherents, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.
Yes, but the news will take decades to filter down to the sages of the age at a small town paper like the Our Town, for whom exploring Darwinism’s failings seems like really, really dangerous territory. Still good skulking weather here for Darwin’s trolls.
Hat tip: Phillip Cunningham
Follow UD News at Twitter!