Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Granville Sewell: Why does Darwinism remain popular when new findings make it less plausible every day?


He offers two reasons:

Science has been so successful explaining other phenomena in terms of purely unintelligent natural forces, why should evolution be so different? However implausible Darwinism is, and however inconsistent with the evidence, it must be true because it is the best materialists have to offer, and the only alternative anyone can imagine to the “unscientific” theory of intelligent design.

Most non-scientists intuitively understand that explaining how plants and animals, and intelligent, conscious humans, could have arisen from a lifeless, barren planet is a very different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science. But most scientists are still confident that nothing could possibly be beyond the reach of their science. In the last decades, an increasing minority of scientists are finally recognizing that the layman is right, that evolution is different. The video attempts to make clear, in terms that even scientists can understand, why evolution really is different, and requires a very different type of explanation, involving intelligent design.

Granville Sewell, “Two Reasons Why a Bad Theory Remains Popular” at Evolution News and Science Today:

The second reason is the “God wouldn’t have done it that way” argument.

Then there’s convergence…

See also: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

SemiOT: Here's another silly origin story: https://www.insidescience.org/news/surface-bubbles-could-have-evolved-earths-first-cells Bubbles are everywhere all the time, on the ocean and every liquid. If this mechanism is possible, why did it happen just once? The same bubbles have been fizzing for billions of years without evolving again. polistra
Because you'll lose your job in academia if you question this theory from the 1860s? -Q Querius
It was only ever "plausible" to those with a firm bias against intelligent intervention. A lot of people have learned not to give a crap about those types. Concealed Citizen
I'm not so sure that science has been successful in explaining other phenomena without including life and intelligence. Weather is traditionally considered as unintelligent and random, but clouds are full of bacteria who presumably use the clouds to serve their own purposes. Electrostatic fields are unintelligent, but most observable electrostatic fields are produced by plants and animals, and used for communication. Clouds can also produce strong fields, but now we're back to bacteria again! polistra
"... New Findings Make It Less Plausible Every Day ..." no... it should be more like: New findings make the theory absurd to the highest possible degree Darwinism = a miracle after a miracle after a miracle after a miracle.... Obviously, Darwinists are very religious people ... martin_r
The reason Drawinism continues as if there is actual evidence is that is precisely how it is worded. Evolution is thrown around everywhere to ensure people continue to think in those terms. That is how propaganda works. BobRyan

Leave a Reply