Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Prof: Darwin’s followers raise ID’s status by attacking it

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Bob Shedinger Headshot In “The Biologist’s Dilemma,” Robert Shedinger, associate profesor of religion at Luther College (Iowa), observes,

Biologists face a real dilemma in their ongoing debate with proponents of intelligent design theory. While on the one hand they would like to simply dismiss intelligent design, denigrating it as religion dressed up as science and therefore unworthy of their serious consideration, they at the same time can’t help but engage the literature of the intelligent design community in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, thus raising the scientific status of the very theory they constantly dismiss as unscientific!

It is clear that those who treat ID with the greatest contempt are those with the most at stake in terms of professional identity and social status. In this highly charged polemical environment, one has to ask what happens to the pursuit of truth. If truth is the first casualty of war, we must assume that the ideological war raging between the biological establishment and the ID movement may be overriding the attempt to actually answer the question: How did life emerge on earth and diversify into the millions of species we see all around us? It is not controversial to suggest that this polemical environment has led ID proponents to caricature evolutionary theory and overplay the evidence for intelligent design. But can the same be said for the biological establishment? As controversial as it may seem, my research over the past year leads me to answer in the affirmative. Truth has been subordinated to ideology on this most profound of issues. The question now becomes: Can the pursuit of truth ever be recovered? More.

Actually, Darwin’s followers are falling by their own deadweight. They have everything except credibility among the well-informed.

It’s getting so that flakking for Darwin is a sign of either being poorly informed or just being an airhead generally. Stay tuned.

See also: Non-Darwinian biologist Rupert Sheldrake takes on Darwinian atheist Daniel Dennett (Says Dawkins’ selfish gene is past its sell-by date.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
News, It will help to enumerate CL's list of top ten problems for evolutionary materialism, from http://www.discovery.org/f/11121 Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup. Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code. Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures. Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations. Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution. Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life." Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry. Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry. Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species. Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA.” That is a significant list, and one that speaks to the longstanding UD pro-darwinism essay challenge. KFkairosfocus
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply