Or “neo-Darwinism” or the “extended synthesis” or similar dodges. The “information from nothing” evolution, whatever it is called:

Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

Peter Robinson, “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter” atHoover Institution

When this stuff is happening, Darwinism is on the outs culturally.

*See also:* Darwinism Vs. Mathematics In A Post-Modern World

Follow UD News at Twitter!

“When this stuff is happening, Darwinism is on the outs culturally.”

Well, no. Communism failed on a number of real world fronts, but it’s followers still claim it’s the Future of human society.

And all of the posts here keep showing that Darwinists OWN the public forum and can get teachers fired for teaching “religion” in public schools if those teachers don’t toe the Darwinian line in Science classes.

I assume there will be some Great Collapse of Darwinism, rather like the eventual admission that Aether does NOT fill the space between celestial objects and most of the universe is a vacuum.

The unstated goal of any truly rigorous scientific theory is to find a precise mathematical equation in which the propositions of that purported scientific theory can make extremely accurate predictions as to what we will find, via experimentation, in reality. As Leonardo Da Vinci stated, “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”

The more closely the mathematical predictions of any given scientific theory match what we actually find in reality the more closely the scientific theory is said to correspond to being a true description of reality. Darwinian evolution simply has no such mathematical equation that can make accurate predictions. As David Berlinski stated previously elsewhere, “Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”

In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution not have a mathematical basis in which to make accurate predictions about what we will find in reality, as was touched upon in the video in the OP, in so far as mathematics has thus far been successfully applied to the propositions of Darwinian evolution it has consistently shown that the predictions of Darwinian evolution are wrong, As William Dembski stated in response to mathematician Gregory Chaitin’s lamentation that it is ” a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.”

In response to that comment from Chaitin, William Dembski stated that, “In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.”

Besides the mathematics of probability showing us that Darwinian evolution ‘does not work’, the mathematics of population genetics itself, math which is more or less directly based on the Darwinian postulates of random variation and natural selection, also show us that Darwinian evolution does not work,

Moreover, besides mathematics falsifying their theory, an even more fundamental difficulty that mathematics presents for Darwinists is that their theory is based on reductive materialism and yet mathmematics itself exists in some type of immaterial, beyond space and time, ‘Platonic’ realm,

As Dr. Michael Egnor points out, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,”

And as David Berlinski noted,

And as James Franklin also noted,

Thus not only does mathematics prove that Darwinian evolution is impossible, mathematics also proves that we must have a immaterial mind in order to understand mathematics in the first place and that the reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution must therefore, necessarily, be false.

Moreover, when considering Godel’s incompleteness theorem, mathematics, (and logic), also proves that the immaterial Mind of God must be behind mathematics:

In fact, both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a ‘miracle’ that we can precisely model the universe with mathematics:

Supplemental quote:

@Vmahuna – Which “religion” should teachers be allowed to present? Do the quotes indicate that the teaching you are referring to is, in fact, not a religion at all and is something else entirely? If so, what is it?