Can anyone believe this? From John van Wyhe at New Scientist:
Evolution is the most revolutionary concept in the history of science. Nothing else has more radically changed our understanding of the natural world and ourselves.
The work of Charles Darwin showed, irrefutably, that humans are just another animal occupying a small branch on a vast tree of life. No divine spark is needed to explain our existence and traits.More.
That’s so obviously untrue it is just ridiculous. Yet New Scientist wants us to pay to read more.
Why? If we wanted religious Darwinism, we could get it at BioLogos for free.
The real action, to the extent that it can get going in a world fumbled by New Scientist types, is rethinking evolution in the light of new information.
Should we put New Scientist on the same watch list as so many other failing legacy media?
See also: New Scientist astounds: Information is physical
BioLogos encounters Ark Encounter
Follow UD News at Twitter!
4 Replies to “New Scientist peddles Darwinism even now. Weeds grow.”
Yes, why not? Here’s why:
The great thing in all these finale conclusions about evolution being true is ALWAYS today they take a shot at God or genesis. Always. I don’t think they did this 60=40 years ago. This shows the impact of ID/YEC etc creationism and friends upon modern origin subjects.
Its fine to say Evolution is revolutionary and important if true.
Turing man into a monkey with computer access was a big claim and if true a big deal.
Irrefutably? Can you trust a monkey on what is settled?
Saying these things are settled is just plain insulting to the common people who have great divisions on these matters. Its an insult to Christianity too.
Its a aggressive assertion in the guise of a well known settled point of evolution being proved.
These writers write themselves out of credibility.
You can’t even get mad at them. They are intellectually uninteresting and irrelevant to the discussions and persuasions going on in millions of hearts in North America.
Has he visited the new ARK created by Ken Ham ?
Irrefutably? Should not irrefutable proof actually consist of some type of irrefutable proof?
Funny sort of irrefutable proof he believes in. No one has even shown it feasible to change one protein into a new protein by Darwinian processes, much less has anyone shown the origin of a new species from another species.
Shoot, not only is Darwinian evolution not irrefutably true, Charles Darwin’s main claim to fame, i.e. natural selection itself, was thrown under the bus by population genetics:
Perhaps by irrefutable proof’ he means the fact that Darwinian evolution is impervious to falsification by empirical evidence since it has no demarcation criteria based in mathematics to make it scientific?
With no demarcation criteria you simply can’t straight out refute Darwinian evolution by empirical observation! i.e. it is irrefutable!
As to his claim of no ‘divine spark’ in humans, has he even been outside his white ivory tower to look around?
I cancelled my subscription to NS when they admitted in an article that they censor dissenting views.