Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

NAS Authority Speaks: That Would Be Blasphemous! Religion Provides the “Acid Test” As Evolution Goes Viral

Cornelius Hunter
June 12, 2012
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

We have seen that an evolution professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, John Avise, argued that the evolution of the species isnot by chance and that the evolution of complexity is not a problem because high fitness, point mutations are fixed in populations of bacteria in a test tube. You might think that such erroneous claims must be one-time blunders—mistakes that would be quickly retracted when pointed out. But this is not the case. These are standard evolutionary arguments. Avise’s book was endorsed by several evolutionists, and when I pointed out these enormous blunders other evolutionists rushed to his defense. Fallacious thinking is fundamental to evolutionary thought. But why? After all, evolutionists such as Avise are certainly not intellectually lacking. Evolutionists are smart, well educated and informed. So why the blatantly erroneous claims? The answer, as usual, comes down to religion.  Read more

Comments
As for Avise's arguments, he seems to believe that if you attribute ANYTHING that happens in this world to God, you have to attribute EVERYTHING that happens to Him. That is strange logic. Granville Sewell
Cornelius, you are right as usual. Anyone who doesn't appreciate how deeply Darwinism has corrupted science is urged to read the last section of this . The logical blunders in the American Journal of Physics article by Daniel Styer are absolutely as grotesque as if he had claimed that 1+1=3. Yet when I submitted a paper pointing out these errors, the journal replied in 2-3 hours, saying, "since it is well established that evolution does not violate the second law, we can consider papers which tell students why, but ..." Both the editor and the "referee" of my MI letter to the editor acknowledged that this paper was flawed, but both agreed that I should not be allowed to critique it in my reply to Lloyd, because it was irrelevant to Lloyd's arguments, even though Lloyd's closing paragraph said that these papers (by Styer and Bunn) were "unchallenged" by Sewell's work. Well, yes, in the scientific literature they are still unchallenged, because if you tow the line philosophically, you can apparently commit as many grotesque errors as you want and AJP will publish your work and not allow any challenges to it. Ironically, the blogger who successfully demanded that the Applied Mathematics Letters editor withdraw my AML article, cited the absurd Styer article as his only evidence that my writings are "often repeated and often refuted." As W.E.Loennig recently told me, the attitude of many scientists today is "evolution is true, and if evolution implies that 1+1=3, then 1+1 must be 3" (not an exact quote, but close). Granville Sewell

Leave a Reply