Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Scientist peddles Darwinism even now. Weeds grow.


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!

I cancelled my subscription to NS when they admitted in an article that they censor dissenting views. aarceng
as to:
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.
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.
New Article in BIO-Complexity Addresses the Problem of Biological Innovation – Ann Gauger – January 4, 2016 Excerpt: Next he, (Doug Axe), tested whether an already existing character with some weak similarity to the target could be evolved by mutation and selection to a proficient version of the target character. Once again, the answer was no. However, if the starting character was only six mutations away from optimization, it improved rapidly upon mutation and selection.,,, Our conclusion? Unless the starting protein already exists as a functional fold of the right design, the protein’s activity cannot be optimized to wild-type levels. In other words, you’ll never get an innovation optimized, even with a pre-existing low level of the desired activity if the innovation is not already present in substantial form. By that I mean that the enzyme already has to be arranged to carry out the innovative function — its structure has to be of the right kind. Natural selection cannot create innovation, and it can’t even optimize pre-existing weak functions that are not of the right design to begin with. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/new_article_in102051.html
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:
Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit – July 2016 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-a-rabbit-is-not-like-a-can-of-coke-pz-myers-own-goal/#comment-612460 Falsification of Natural Selection, Universal Common Descent, (and reliable observation) Within Population Genetics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1227292020617062/?type=2&theater
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!
Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater Darwinian evolution is more realistically classified as a pseudoscience, instead of a real science, because it does not have a rigid falsification criteria based in mathematics as other overarching theories of science have. (July 2016) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/darwinian-dictionary-new-entry-regressive-evolution/#comment-613084
As to his claim of no 'divine spark' in humans, has he even been outside his white ivory tower to look around?
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html
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 ? Robert Byers
Can anyone believe this?
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.
Yes, why not? Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ug2ESBHalm4 :) Dionisio

Leave a Reply