In 1959, he says, Darwinian evolution was alive and well, but it’s looking kind of doubtful now:
Ann Reid, executive director of the nation’s leading Darwin lobby, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), has insisted in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, “Goodness knows the science is settled, too. No credible scientist doubts that evolution is the theoretical and practical core of biology, with more evidence emerging from a rich array of research fields with every passing year…
But amidst all this chest thumping over neo-Darwinian certainties, doubts are unmistakably on the rise. Most interestingly they seem to be expressed in ways that were unthinkable among Darwin’s previous generation of followers. One thinks of the unbridled celebrations at Darwin’s centennial publication of his Origin of Species. The largest was hosted by the University of Chicago, November 24-28, 1959, and it drew 2,500 participants with almost 250 delegates from 189 colleges. Many of the “synthesizers” of modern genetics with Darwinian evolution were there: George Gaylord Simpson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and the grandson of Darwin’s Bulldog, Julian Huxley. Betty Smocovitis could say in 1999, “that it outshone — and arguably may still outshine — all other scientific celebrations in the recent history of science.” When Dobzhansky declared in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” he was saying what virtually everyone was thinking — and saying in different ways — during those momentous fall days 14 years before. The future was bright and hardly in doubt.
In that context a recent collection of essays, compiled in an anthology titled Darwin in the Twenty-First Century: Nature, Humanity, and God, caught my attention. They demonstrate that Smocovitis’s claim remains true; the centennial celebration would know no equal. Here’s why. These 16 chapters were the products of conferences held at the Gregorian University in Rome and at the University of Notre Dame to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Most interesting of all is the last essay by a noted historian and philosopher of biology, the late Jean Gayon, “What Future for Darwinism?” Against the centennial celebration, the question itself stands out as one that certainly wasn’t to be seriously asked in Chicago. :
Michael Flannery, “Darwinism, past, present, and future” at Evolution News and Science Today
As he goes on to illustrate, the future doesn’t sound very bright.
Speaking of the Darwin lobby (NCSE above): The Darwinians have essentially written and spoken as if evolution is Darwinism. It sounds like a clever strategy for selling their idea but there is a huge underlying weakness.
Suppose you ask me (O’Leary for News), “Do you believe in evolution?” well, I’m not sure what to say.*
I believe in evolution in general for the same reasons as I believe in weather in general. After all, things change. The world is not as it was a hundred or a thousand or a million years ago. And some changes are permanent.
But usually, the questioner wants to work it around such that I am supposed to believe in the world-shaping power of Dawkins’s selfish gene or some such thing. And of course I do not. From what I can tell, fewer scientists believe it than used to, which means that my skepticism is not particularly “unscientific” either. It’s just not of any use to the Darwin lobby. But that’s their problem. They’d better get used to it. They will be hearing plenty more.
*In the same way, a person might ask, “Do you believe in weather?” and lo! and behold!, that individual wants me to espouse a crackpot the-planet-is-doomed-in-a-decade thesis. No thanks.
See also: PragerU’s new vid explains science-based doubts about evolution.“In November 2016, I attended a conference in London attended by some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose? To address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwin’s theory.”
The miracle seems to be that the courtiers have so doggedly continued to laud the artorial elegance of the emperor, naked as the day he was born. More naked – if that’s possible. After all, Darwin trashed his theory, himself, didn’t he, on at least one occasion, if such and such did not occur. It didn’t. (Can’t remember the details).
as to:
It is funny that Darwinists will often appeal to other theories in science, (instead of empirical evidence), to try to establish legitimacy for their own theory. You never hear of scientists in other fields, say quantum mechanics, saying that “Quantum Mechanics is as well established as Darwinian evolution.”
In this case Ann Reid compared her certainty in Darwinian evolution to her certainty that matter is made of atoms.
Dennis Venema recently compared his certainty in Darwinian evolution to his certainty the sun is the center of the solar system:
This is all old hat for Darwinists. In the 1880s, in a book Joseph Le Conte wrote, even after conceding that the fossil record did not fit Darwinian predictions, none-the-less he claimed that “The law of evolution is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain.”
Again, you never hear of scientists in other fields returning the favor to Darwinists.
Which is just as well, the other sciences, especially biological sciences themselves, certainly don’t need Darwinian presuppositions. As Marc Kirschner stated, “Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
An as A.S. Wilkins stated “the great majority of biologists,, can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.”
And as the late Philip Skell stated, “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether a theory is even scientific of not, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science,,
Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science.
In fact, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.
As to Ann Reid’s claim that Darwinian evolution is just as ‘settled science’ as the fact that “matter is made of atoms”, it is interesting to note that it is now found that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists,
,,,but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve, as the following article states, into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”
In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even the stuff of matter or energy at all, (as materialists had originally presupposed), but it turns out the fundamental stuff of the universe is ‘abstract’ immaterial information itself. As Professor Vedral of Oxford stated, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information”,,,
And as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”,,, And Dr. Zeilinger even goes on to note the Theological significance of finding information to be the most fundamental definition of reality. Specifically, he cites John 1:1 which states “In the beginning was the Word”
Thus, in an irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn out to be solid, and concrete, and therefore real on the materialistic definition of what is supposed to be ‘real’, but the supposedly solid and concrete material particles themselves turn out instead to be made of “abstract” immaterial information.
This puts the die-hard Darwinian materialist in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explained in his article, to make sense of this dilemma of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. In other words, we must ultimately appeal to the Mind of God!
Or to put the implications from these recent advances in quantum mechanics much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
Thus far from consciousness and our sense of self being illusory, as Darwinian materialists are forced to believe because of their unwarranted presupposition of reductive materialism and/or methodological naturalism, it turns out that material reality itself is what is in fact found to be illusory.
As Physics professor Richard Conn Henry further stated in response to the experimental falsification of realism by Leggett’s inequality, “if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism”,,,
Verse:
Bad news for the ID folks:
This very recent interesting paper in a prestigious journal clearly shows how the eukaryotic cells arose:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.190126
PavelU,
“Bad news for the ID folks:”
Could you quote the Bad News, so we don’t have to guess at what the h*ll you are talking about?
Andrew
Asauber,
No problem, my pleasure:
It’s right at the beginning of the introduction.
Sorry if this information punched a hole through your ID beliefs.
PavelIU
“All modern-day eukaryotes are believed to have arisen from a primordial ancestor”
This is just someone’s belief, for starters. Those are a dime a dozen and dont demonstrate anything. Got anything else that will waste more of my time?
Andrew
PavelU
Well PavelU, sorry if that information punched a hole through your evolutionary beliefs.
As to mitochondria, I really don’t think you want to go down the path of claiming those molecular machines are the product of mindless Darwinian processes:
Bornagain77@ 2
That’s probably because physicists are not being bombarded with accusations from religious fundamentalists that Schrodingerism or Heisenbergism or Bohrism are totally unsubstantiated nonsense, that the idea that quantum phenomena can exist in a superposition of states until observed or measured is just ridiculous metaphysical speculation.
Really? So you could jump off a tall building or walk in front of a speeding vehicle without ill-effects? As an atheist/materialist I really wouldn’t recommend it because I’m pretty sure you would find that physical reality is painfully real.
Seversky, funny you did not present any empirical evidence to show just how strong your theory is compared to other theories: (oh yeah that’s right, you don’t have any evidence)
As to your second part, you forgot that “solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience.” i.e. you just can’t get away from the necessary perquisite of conscious experience in order for you to even be able to describe reality in the first place:
.
LoL! @ seversky- As an atheist/ materialist you cannot account for pain. You cannot account for our existence nor the existence of any buildings.
And if Kitzmiller vs Dover SB is any indication all you and your ilk can do is lie and bluff your way through life.
Where’s Drive-By PavelIU this morning?
I’m bored.
Andrew
PavelU:
Except there isn’t anything in the article that pertains to blind and mindless processes. And eukaryotes are much more than proks with mitochondria.
“interesting paper in a prestigious journal”
Flag! Appeal to flowery language. PavelIU is penalized for writing poetry on a science blog.
Andrew
To all:
Regarding the paper PavelU has cited, it points to ID all the way.
PavelU seems to have some reading comprehension issues that should try to correct before he cites another paper here.
The poor guy seems so confused.
From the very abstract one can read the evidences for ID clearly:
However, many authors sprinkle a few “evolutionary” nonsense statements here and there in order to keep the academic establishment unprovoked.
Here are the concluding remarks:
Seversky’s gone quiet. Shrodinger’s cat got your tongue and disappeared with it, Sev ?
Incidentally, Pav sounds a character, doesn’t he ? Wonderfully truculent, come hell or high water. Game to the last! What am I saying !?! I’ve just read Anne Reid’s ‘bon mot’ right at the top. Or could it be Sean Carrol, under a ‘nom de plume’ ?
Somehow, you don’t feel so guilty at mocking the afflicted, when they get stroppy.
The only reason the Darwinian/ neo-Darwinian theory of evolution continues to persist is not because of the science and empirical evidence. The only reason it persists is because of its metaphysical assumptions. No theory provides a better hand-in-glove fit with atheistic materialism than Darwin’s theory of natural selection acting on random variation. In other words, since atheists believe that naturalism/ materialism must be true the only mechanism they have to explain “evolution” is the Darwinian mechanism. So rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads they begin with their philosophical beliefs and assumptions and then try to force fit the evidence into their pre-conceived paradigm. Design is not an option because it has been excluded by them a priori.