Darwinism Intelligent Design News Science

He said it: Here’s a statement from a Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site

Spread the love
A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down

From Robert Laughlin, Nobel 1998:

Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!

Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

Darwinists think that no one has actually noticed this stuff, so they burble on as if.

2 Replies to “He said it: Here’s a statement from a Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    AMEN.
    The equation is.
    If evolutionary biology in whole or part is wrong then it couldn’t possibly have evidence behind it of quality and quantity.
    Worse. It couldn’t have that higher standard of investigation called SCIENCE.
    It couldn’t have scientific evidence behind it.
    So what is behind?

    Watch carefully what they say.
    One will find lines of reasoning based on minor details of true facts.
    Creationists just need to do forensics on the science behind evolution.
    Starting with Darwin’s micro changes equals macro changes.
    is the conclusion of macro changes from science or from a line of reasoning with no science involved.
    Yet his big point that he seems to think is scientific .

  2. 2
    Petrushka says:

    At your lik I find this comment:

    Proponents of “Intelligent Design” should be VERY careful not to leap to any assumption that Laughlin’s ideas of emergent self-organization might support their beliefs. Quite the opposite: his Emergence utterly dispenses with any need, philosophical or scientific, for a Designer.

Leave a Reply