Posted on 02/11/2009 8:07:30 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day
By Casey Luskin
Posted February 10, 2009
February 12 used to be universally recognized as the birthday of Abraham Lincoln—a day celebrating freedom. Needing a patron saint, Darwinists in recent years have converted February 12 into "Darwin Day."
There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday—if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com).
To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."
One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years.
Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress.
The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins.
The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell won't function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications?
Even scientists who reject ID admit that neo-Darwinism is lacking. Biochemist Franklin Harold stated in a 2001 Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Indeed, over 750 Ph.D. scientists have signed a list declaring their view that random mutation and natural selection are impotent to explain the complexity of life (see www.dissentfromdarwin.org).
As we sequence more genomes of species, biologists are also finding that one gene or trait implies one evolutionary tree, while another gene yields an entirely different tree. No wonder the cover of the journal New Scientist recently declared that with respect to his vision of a grand tree of life, "Darwin Was Wrong."
Common descent—the view that all species are related—has also failed to overcome a problem that Darwin recognized in his own day: the lack of evolutionary transitions documented in the fossil record. Instead, what we see are new biological forms coming into existence in "explosions," without clear evolutionary precursors.
Finally, Darwinists have long-argued that our cells can't be designed because they are full of functionless "junk DNA." But in recent years, biologists have discovered that the vast majority of our DNA is performing vital cellular functions and isn't "junk" at all. The wrong-headed conclusions of modern Darwinists have stifled scientific progress and slowed discovery of function for noncoding DNA.
Despite the bluffs of Darwinists, neo-Darwinism has plenty of scientific weaknesses that are discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since cellular language implies an author, and microbiological machines imply an engineer, and genetically encoded programs imply a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the solution is intelligent design.
-------------------
Casey Luskin is cofounder of the Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center and program officer in public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Earth sciences from the University of California-San Diego and a law degree from the University of San Diego.
Good morning!
There is nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin, he was an important scientist and a nice guy to boot. I would agree that the neo-Darwinists have gone WAY overboard with it all the reverence. The most important progress in evolutionary biology happened in the last 50 years. Darwin and Wallace simply set the stage for the modern synthesis.
Darwin was not a scientist. Nor did he follow the scientific method. He was a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist. Origin of Species was largely devoid of scientific evidence. It was nothing more than a long argument advocating a complete reinterpretation of biological history based on minor variations between finches.
Thanks for the ping!
yea, natural historian is probably the better term.
Ah, the positing of irreducibly complexity as an argument for ID and against evolution.
I note with interest that no peer-reviewed scientific study accompanies the positing of irreducible complexity.
Why do you think that is?
Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
==Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
That Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent is a demonstrable fact:
http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies
What is intellegent design?
“Origin of Species was largely devoid of scientific evidence.”
Oh and intelligent design is chock full of it? Right.
“is a demonstrable fact”
One that gets player out in this website everyday.
You mean people should keep their jobs when they don’t do what they’ve been hired to do?
So you are saying that part of a scientist’s job description should be to tow the Darwin Party line? How open-minded of you! All sides of this issue should be forced to compete in the free market of scientific ideas. Those who resort to intimidation and force are not at all secure in their position.
I can see it now...
“So, Father Stormer, how is your congregation doing?”
“Fine, Monseigneur. But explaining this concept of transubstantiation has me troubled. And rising from the dead? Come on - get real.”
“What are you getting at, my son?”
“I just don't buy it. It's crap. Did I mention I said that during my last sermon?”
[[You mean people should keep their jobs when they don’t do what they’ve been hired to do?]]
And what are they ‘hired to do’? Lie to the public? Stifle any dissent? Ostracise those who don’t tow the TOE line? Ignore hte evidneces and extrapolate wild far reaching assumption driven hypothesis’ about supposed common descent?
Heaven forbid asnyone just look at hte actual facts and point out hte myriad problems and impossibilities with the currently ‘accepted’ Godless hypothesis.
That Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent is a demonstrable fact:
_________
OK. Point me to a place where I can read the scientific dissent related to, say, irreducible complexity, you know, one of the topics mentioned in this thread that you have posted. Note that the request is for the scientific dissent, not philosophical. I’m pretty clear on the latter.
One that gets player out in this website everyday.
_______
I try to read all of the (do we still call them) crevo threads, and read your posts with interest (although not a lot of agreement). I don’t believe we have ever sparred, nor have I ever seen evidence of anything you say, or anyone on the creation side of the debate, having been stifled on this website.
I’m not sure what you’re asking for.
There is no try; only do.
Looking forward to seeing Alabama, Texas, et al in court. Soon.
Quite simply: Is irreducible complexity part of the scientific dissent to the theory of evolution that “evolutionists” are stifling?
followup: where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?
Why am I picking out irreducible complexity of all things? The article you posted, in paragraph 6, uses the irreducible complexity argument in favor of ID and against evolution. Where’s the science to demonstrate this?
The upshot: You mentioned, specifically, that it was scientific dissent that was being stifled. I’m wondering if you really mean that some philosophical arguments against evolution are being kept out of the classroom (read: being stifled).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.