Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Egnor: The Nobels this year were another win for design in nature


One gets the impression that he doesn’t feel dreadfully sorry for the Darwinists:

After more than a century of shut-outs at the Nobel Prizes, it’s understandable that Darwinists are a bit dejected. It’s embarrassing that the “greatest idea anyone ever had” and the “theory that explains all of biology” can’t in a century garner even one of science’s most distinguished awards. Instead, it must make do with wordplay, as we saw with last year’s Prize in Chemistry for “directed evolution.” (See Ann Gauger’s post, “It’s Not ‘Evolution’ — A Nobel Prize for Engineering Enzymes.”)

It’s understandable why Darwinian scientists spend so much time in court silencing scientists and teachers who question their theory. In the arena of world-class science, Darwinism is a joke, and it wouldn’t last a day unless challenges to it were silenced by force.

On the other hand, the inference to design won big again this year. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2019 was awarded jointly to William G. Kaelin Jr., Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza “for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.” Their work as described in Forbes was elegant reverse-engineering: …

Michael Egnor, “It’s Another Great Nobel Year for Design” at Evolution News and Science Today

But Darwinists can console themselves that, no matter what else happens, pop science mags will probably stay faithful. Darwinism means always having a folk tale with a simple moral to tell about the animal world. How about “The Darwinbird of pop science,” for example?

See also: A Darwin snark for a new Nobelist. If one is just looking for something to be snarky about, it is best not to engage with any serious issues. In that case, puffing popular Darwinism at every opportunity is the best choice available. But there’s sure no Nobel for that.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Ronvanwegen@ 3
Seversky – give it a break mate.
Quite right, mate. Shouldn't stoop to Egnor's level.
A Darwinist saying something foolish is like a fish getting wet — you expect it. But some foolishness just stands out.
I don't believe Seversky's curiously vagrant apercu is even meant to be an 'argument by assertion'. Rather, it seems to be an 'assertion by assertion' - his thought process, such as it is, not being sufficiently 'joined up' to even represent an intelligible innuendo. Axel
Seversky - give it a break mate. ronvanwegen
In any reality a cowardly innuendo is not an argument. ET
I think Egnor is unwittingly evidence for the multiverse because he seems to be coming from some sort of parallel reality. Seversky

Leave a Reply