Darwinian evolutionist E. O. Wilson insists that biology can do better than traditional faith, and meanwhile – in a fascinating passage that somehow signifies the passing of an old order – disses intelligent design.
Wilson insists that all the ID guys have to do is come up with “evidence” – so why don’t they?
The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science.
There is something almost obscene about a smug – and so they say – gentlemanly* prof sitting pretty at Harvard , writing this disingenuous garbage, in full awareness that none of his cowering colleagues will ask the obvious question: What happened to people who DID come up with evidence against Darwinism (and therefore maybe for intelligent design)?
What about them? Hey, the Darwin mob knows what to do about people who know that Darwinism is bankrupt and why, as the Expelled movie will certainly show.
Also, just look at the filth written by other people’s students about prof Mike Behe. And his crime? Behe KNOWS that what Wilson is saying is not true. Natural selection acting on random mutation rarely produces worthwhile information.
That’s just a fact, one that Darwinists cannot grapple with. The life of the universe is not long enough to do what Darwinists need.
People who do not know how to pay their bills look for victims, scapegoats. So, are the Darwinists’ victims and scapegoats just Behe and the other guys I mentioned above?
Not only them, no. Do you by any chance have a working brain?
I myself am, to this day, in receipt of garbage posts from an anti-ID scuzzbucket who seems to have dedicated his retirement years to destroying the careers of people who know that Wilson’s Darwinism is the Enron of biology.
Recently, I wrote to a scientist with whom I might be writing a book at some point, as follows:
… the problem is NOT that old Professor Harrumph of Harvard will disapprove of your views but that gangs of Internet yay-hoos (proud atheists all) will be yelling “xxxxxx yyyyyy is a ruddy FAG!!”
Some of them will be the grad students of that prof’s colleagues, and they will NOT be rebuked for their filthy insolence and stupid detractions.
So I wondered, can his family and friends and faith support him through all this?
As a science journalist, I am hesitant to work with scientists who do not have networks who can support them through the siege of foul-mouthed and otherwise stupid Darwinists.
This isn’t Muppet Laboratories, after all, where all the puppets go back into the box at the end of the show. Real human beings could be harmed, including children and teens, while we insist on balancing the books.
Or, alternatively, the real human beings could stand up to it. They can understand what is at stake and draw lines to protect themselves from the scuzzbuckets (often paid for by their tax dollars) who attack people – including their own nearest and dearest – with valid evidence against Darwinism.
It’s hard to explain to kids, but here’s the deal: Balancing the books of the Enron of biology will not be done without serious cost. If you’re not safe, stay out of the way and no problem. But don’t undermine the ID people who hold the future in their hands.
Otherwise, if you are safe, proceed with caution … and welcome to the future.
*Incidentally, re the “gentlemanly” stuff, I wouldn’t really care if Wilson has a mouth on him like PZ Myers. That’s not the substance of the problem we are dealing with, when confronting the Enron of biology. We want the books balanced. That’s all. And for all I know, it’s a crime. And if so, I’m guilty. Are you? And if not, why aren’t you? Don’t you want credit for having a mind when it matters?