Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[balrog666]

I don't know if your statement applies to anyone around here, but you have just summed up my ex in a nutshell...

Congratulations on your escape!

[js1138]

I can't think of a design more intelligent than one that would be self-maintaining and self-upgrading.

So after admitting that we don't know the history of biogenesis, and that molecular biologists are actively researching the problem, what else is there to say?

When science doesn't know something, it tries to find out.

[balrog666]

What is Dumbski doing here?

[js1138]

Michael Denton:

"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

SirLinksalot:

That does not make him a non-skeptic of evolution.

LOL.

Among other things it means he accepts abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon.

[js1138]

His daily self-flagellation.

[tacticalogic]

When science doesn't know something, it tries to find out.

Indeed. The question at hand seems to be whether curiousity is vice or virtue.

[SirLinksalot]

LOL, you quote his 2000 statement and then ignore the following statement he makes in his 2002 book :

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

I mentioned Denton because HE IS A SKEPTIC OF EVOLUTION. I did it in response to a question asked --- ARE ALL SKEPTICS OF EVOLUTION CHRISTIANS OR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ? to which I said --- NOT NECESSARILY. I gave Denton and Berlinski as examples.

Denton's latest could almost be seen as a sequel to his first major critique of Darwinian Evolution, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." In that book he devastates the Neo-Darwinian paradigm with evidence from various fields of biology, and concludes that life does appear to be designed. But then he does not follow the conclusion to a Designer, but remains a confirmed agnostic ( WHICH IS MY POINT --- NOT ALL SKEPTICS OF DARWINISM ARE THEISTS). Apparently to resolve this peculiar stance of his, he writes the second volume, "Nature's Destiny". In it, he dives into a full-fledged purpose-driven (teleological) view of life and the universe. Or more accurately, what he proposes is a thoroughly deterministic view of life, based on the inherent physical and chemical constants in the laws of nature. While I by no means subscribe to his evolutionary conclusions regarding the evidence he propounds, I found the evidence and research he presented pointing to design to be fascinating.

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

Why do so many refuse to let go of materialist assumptions when the simplest explanation is design?

It is as if nature shouts “Planned!” from the cosmos down to the micros - yet so many prominent minds refuse to even entertain the idea - why is that?

I see no other explanation than a pre-existing commitment to a philosophical view, one adherants hold is superior to the metaphysical superstitions of the ignorant masses while refusing to admit its own metaphysical nature!

[stands2reason]

OMG, you have got to be kidding me.

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

[stands2reason]

Of course. I have no need or intention of proving it.

I really don't care what anyone else believes or thinks, unlike some creationists who wish to have physical proof of God "once and for all."

[stands2reason]

"Is English your second language?" is an attack.

Don't bother trying to tell me it isn't.

[stands2reason]

Because I don't accept other men's descriptions of God. How hard is that to understand?

[js1138]

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."

So what's your point? That's just a fancy statement of the anthropic principle, something dreamed up by physicists.

I don't resist religious thoughts unless they contradict the findings of science, or -- much worse -- get used by the anti-science crowd to oppose research.

[upcountryhorseman]

Very interesting; however Darwinian evolution requires an
evolutionary sequence within one species.

[js1138]

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic. The constraint being that stochastic variations have to survive and reproduce.

The question of original life cannot be settled by sitting on your ass and thinking about it. Its a matter for research.

I ask you if quantum theory could have been invented by people thinking about first principles, or could have been decided without the two slit experiment.

[js1138]

What does that mean. Evolution assumes that every offspring is of the same species as its parents, if that's what you mean.

That particular question was settled by 1940.

[Dimensio]

Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific.

Behe specificially stated that astrology would qualify as a "scientific theory" based upon his definition of the term. I have seen no one suggest that he accepts astrology, but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.

[js1138]

AI have to amend my statement. Plants occasionally speciate by polyploidy, doubling their chromosomes in one generation.

Nearly everything we eat is a result of a polyploidy event within human history.

Because chromosome doubling is so common in plants, you don't have such a severe problem of mutant individuals finding mates.

Except, ironically, in the plants we cultivate for food. They can't mate successfully without human intervention.

[Dimensio]

IT's THAT SIMPLE. BUT EVEN THIS ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.

That is because the statement that there exist "competing theories to Darwinian evolution" is a lie.

[js1138]

but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.

It explains everything, and that's what's important.

Research is hard, Barbie. Let's go shopping.

[Boiler Plate]

Naturalism.