Darwinism Intelligent Design theistic evolution

Michael Chaberek: Darwinian theory is past its best-before date

Spread the love

Laszlo Bencze writes to say,

Michael Chaberek. I’m currently reading Catholicism and Evolution, by Michael Chaberek. It would be easy to assume that the book deals in esoteric matters of interest to Catholics only. However, I’m finding that it offers one of the best summaries of the history of evolution that I have ever read. It’s scope strikes me as broad and it’s tone is scholarly but in a highly readable style. It is also extremely ID friendly and proposes ID as far superior to theistic evolution as a way of understanding biology. Here’s an excerpt, from a section explaining what ID is up to:

A proposition for the improvement of an outdated theory. The proponents of intelligent design are not trying to reject Darwin’s theory completely, but instead, are seeking to modify it. Doubtless, there is a limited extent to which the theory is true, but it dates back to the 19th century and, just like the theories from other scientific domains, it has suffered some degree of expiration. Its explanatory power is too weak to account for phenomena observed under the electron microscopes of the 21st century. Darwin’s theory may be compared to Newton’s mechanics, which eventually were replaced by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Newton’s theory remained valid, but only with reference to a narrow range of phenomena (at low speeds and in small spaces.) In order to explain broader phenomena, we needed a new and more general theory. In biology this broader theory is intelligent design. (p. 58)

It’s clear that succeeding chapters do delve into the specifics of Catholic doctrine and the evolution of Catholic thought about Evolution. But I suspect that even these will be valuable to the general reader. Regardless the first two chapters are incisive and highly useful to ID advocates.

See also: More tales of the tone deaf: Catholic intellectuals who say that Thomas Aquinas would not have supported ID

and

Top Vatican official says Catholic scientists should “come out”

4 Replies to “Michael Chaberek: Darwinian theory is past its best-before date

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Perhaps Laszlo Bencze and Muchael Chaberek should take the trouble to apprise themselves of the current state of evolutionary theory rather than battering the strawman of “Darwinism”. It may surprise them to know the theory has advanced considerably since 1859

    It would also help if they could explain how an unidentified, undefined, unspecified designer offers any more explanatory purchase than a god as an account of how what is came to be and how it works. I also doubt that Catholic doctrine is any more illuminating in this field.

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev:

    It may surprise them to know the theory has advanced considerably since 1859.

    Of course it has. No one disputes that Darwin was wrong about a great many things. I don’t know why you think this is a plus for your side. Perhaps you can read the post more closely though. It merely states that the theory dates back to the 19th Century. It does not claim the theory has not changed since then. Again, of course it has. No one thinks otherwise, and I wonder why you think they do.

    It would also help if they could explain how an unidentified, undefined, unspecified designer offers any more explanatory purchase than a god

    Of course that is not the relevant choice. The choice is between a designer and blind, unguided natural forces. And to answer your question, the former provides more explanatory purchase because it has been shown countless trillions of times to produce complex specified information like that seen in living things; whereas the latter has not — not even once.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    …the former provides more explanatory purchase because it has been shown countless trillions of times to produce complex specified information like that seen in living things; whereas the latter has not — not even once.

    But what about the Dawkins WEASEL program. Doesn’t it show that blind, unguided natural forces can evolve something complex, like an eye, in just a few generations?

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Seversky- There still isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. So what is there to apprise?

    It would also help if they could explain how an unidentified, undefined, unspecified designer offers any more explanatory purchase than a god as an account of how what is came to be and how it works.

    At least that scenario is testable whereas your position is not. I take it that fact bothers you quite a bit.

Leave a Reply