From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:
Wow, congratulations to Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton! He has won richly deserved praise in the London Spectator. In a feature highlighting “The best and worst books of 2016,” with choices from a panel of contributors, the distinguished literary critic A.N. Wilson selects Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis as his best nonfiction work of the year:
Michael Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Discovery Institute Press, £16.80). A sequel to his 1985 book — Evolution: A Theory in Crisis — this takes us up to date with the dazzling developments of life sciences over the past 30 years. Denton is a sceptic about Darwin’s theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. It is hard to see how anyone reading his book could not be persuaded. Palaeontology provides abundant evidence of evolution within species, but none of one species morphing into another. Denton is fascinatingly clear in his exposition of the science of genetics, and how it destroys the Darwinian position. A truly great book. More.
Michael Denton’s first edition, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, set many people thinking. The second edition (“Still” a Theory in Crisis) is even better. If one looks at evolution without the coke bottle glasses supplied by Darwinism, one learns so much more. But that is just the trouble. A smart whelp may soon know more than the Darwinist prof. One must apply the brakes.
See also: Michael Denton: Life – 4 B years with no change
Follow UD News at Twitter!
6 Replies to “Michael Denton’s Evolution (Still) a Theory in Crisis a Spectator “Best Book”?”
It’s actually, ‘The Spectator’, just as ‘The London Times’, is just ‘The Times’.
The Spectator has boasted Boris Johnson as a former editor.It is owned by David and Frederick Barclay who also own The Daily Telegraph, also known as the Torygraph; pattern emerging here?
It’s position on various areas is as follows; strongly pro-American, strongly anti-Europe, anti-Scottish independence, pro-Isarael, global warming denial, and strongly pro-royals, among others: Pattern emerging here?
It’s position on evolution fluctuates and wavers. Suffice to say it is strongly Republican in inclination and is not fond of things it can’t understand.
Getting an award from them praising your science denial is not something you should noise around, outside the confines of the Conservative and Republican parties.
From 1985 to 2016 is 31 years. Have you any idea at the volume of research supporting evolution published during this period is. i don’t , but I can confidentally say it is volumanous.
And when he publishes ‘Still a Theory in Crisis Rebooted’, in 2047, I am sure the volume of work supporting this crisis ridden theory will be even more fecund.
rvb8 Are you ever going to use any actual evidence to support your view of evolution.
Please stop saying, the majority of biologists believe it
please stop saying look at all the science text books, please stop saying Dawkins, Coyne,Dennett, et al all believe is , as though any of these things have anything to do with science or are evidence to support a position , because they are not.
If most scientist`s had your view nothing new would ever be discovered , and no new theories would ever originate as the majority say one thing and I am saying the other so my ideas must be wrong. So if you say evolution is a well supported ,well documented,evidence based theory , well please present that evidence, support, etc then we are talking science.
rvb8, you claim that “Evolution: a Theory in Crisis” and “Evolution: (Still) a Theory in Crisis” are refuted by ‘voluminous,, research supporting evolution’.
The fallacy you just committed here is known as a ‘literature bluff’.
A Darwinist named Nick Matzke, who use to blog here from time to time, was infamous for employing the tactic of literature bluffing:
In the literature, the way that Darwinists give the false impression that experimental science supports Darwinian evolution is by what has been termed a ‘narrative gloss’:
Here are a few notes backing that ‘just a narrative gloss’ assertion up:
The truth, once you get past all the ‘bluff and bluster’, is that experiments in the lab have never bore, and will never bear, fruitful results that will ever prove Darwinian evolution is, in fact, true: (November 2016)
One of the main reasons that no one can ever scientifically prove Darwinian evolution is actually true is that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science in the first place, but is more properly classified as a non-falsifiable pseudo-science:
To back up the claim that “Evolution: a Theory in Crisis”, Denton’s first book, is still relevant, just recently this article was published:
Please note how the claim in that article from last week matches up with what Denton said 3 decades ago:
Frankly, many of Denton’s deep insights in ‘Evolution: A Theory In Crisis’, and in his subsequent books, besides still being relevant, are simply timelessly beautiful.
Here are a few more supplemental notes on Denton’s work:
rvb: Have you any idea at the volume of research supporting evolution published during this period is.
Of course we do. And BTW do you have any idea of the volume of money taken from the taxpayers for this purpose? And yes most of the resulting papers will have the words “could have”, “might have been”, “probably occurred”, etc. etc. that are required to conform to the style of reporting to which you refer. And also all kinds of conforming references (as in the popular media, e.g. NatGeo) to attributes of organisms as having “evolved” instead of just stating the obvious and direct ‘are extant’. Or maybe even just referring to them directly, what a concept. But the former style makes it easier to hypnotize people like you into the preferred worldview, scientific materialism.
And BTW RVB have you any idea of the volume of research that documents Darwinian macroevolution as it is unfolding in the here and now? Please I’m sure you can be forthcoming on this.
And one more thing R. Have you any idea of the volume of time you spend coming onto the website with apparently little or nothing to show for it? Or maybe if I’m wrong and if you think there is something to show for it can you let us in on that?
RVB8 and others:
I wrote about this behavior back in 2011 on my blog.
“The pattern is consistent and very old; I have been seeing it in the popular literature for over 30 years now, and it seldom varies from the script. A bold statement up front claiming the settled scientific truth and fact of evolution then followed by a long series of speculations and suppositions supported by little if any scientific fact.
A couple of illustrations to make my point: … ”
Read my full article at https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/?s=not+that+smart
I received no feedback or answers back then, nor do I expect any now from RVB8 and others of his type. However, others may interested and provide their own experiences.
WHAT SAY YOU?