Darwinism has grown and blossomed into a cultish religion. Anyone challenging Darwinian evolution will be demonized and punished. The bombastic Darwinian rhetoric says that Darwinians are not against questions of their theory. Darwinians will cite examples of certain questions of the evolutionary mechanism. This is misleading because Darwinians have not proposed anything that challenges the foundational basis of Darwinism, which is random mutation and non-teleological naturalism. The only theory that challenges the foundation of Darwinism is ID. This is the reason Darwinism is so opposed to ID. Darwinians are not threatened by variations to their religious doctrines but when you challenge the basic tenets of their belief that’s where they draw the line.
The question people need to ask is why is it wrong to question Darwinism? Why are scientists portrayed as ignorant and unscientific if they are skeptical of Darwinism? Darwinians also try to make science into a democratic process by citing the majority of scientists affirms Darwinian evolution as the only explanation for life. Science is not subject to popular opinion. In almost every paradigm change is science there is a huge resistance to that change and the majority of the intellectuals at the time will affirm their status quo. i.e. Heliocentricity, Mendelian genetics, Relativity, Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics.
Ultimately, science will evolve and the truth will suffice. It is just a matter of time. Darwinians can delay this progress by stymieing ID through political and academic oppression, but they will not suppress the progress of science forever. To the current Darwinist will no doubt cheer and feel gratify that they have succeeded for the moment. Science like freedom can never be suppress indefinitely.
Darwinists attack ID as Creationism, personal belief, and philosophy. Why? Is it just because it conflicts with the foundational tenet of Darwinian evolution? Detecting and inferring design is practiced in science regularly from SETI to Stonehenge. Why is it off limits to detect and infer design in biological science? The Darwinian argument gets worst because they are the only self appointed Priests that is allowed to infer random mutation and natural selection as the explanation for biology. When critics point out their inference has produced no empirical evidence for their faith. The Darwinian retort is chastise the critics for appeal to the gap of their knowledge. How long should these gaps of knowledge be allowed to exist? It has been over 150 years. Most damaging to the Darwinian argument is not because of any gaps in knowledge. The fact is that the gaps have been filled and our scientific data shows that the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are incapable of producing the types of biodiversity we observe. ID many not prove to be a viable replacement theory, but Darwinism is certainly failed as an explanation for biology.
ID is a burgeoning theory that must be explored with many different avenues. There is a growing numbers of testable theories for ID and more will come along if the Darwinian oppression is lifted. Contrary to Darwinian propaganda not all of these theories stems from Creationists. i.e. Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) by John Davison, Design-by-Contract by Albert de Roos. From the Creationist side there is the Limitation of Varieties by Fernando Chavez. Darwinists are not interested furthering science, they are only concerned with protecting their secular materialistic naturalism.
Related Posts
7 Responses to “Challenging Darwinian Evolution”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I can’t think of anyone who’s been portrayed as “ignorant” or “unscientific” for questioning any part of Darwinian theory. That didn’t happen to Thomas Hunt Morgan, for example, nor to Agassiz, nor to Asa Gray (before he saw the light), nor to Mayr, and especially not to Gould and Eldredge.
Instead, I see people earn that label when they question Darwinian theory without having done any research to back up the claims of their critiques. Those who get labeled “ignorant” and “unscientific” are those who come without data to back up their points, and who then refuse to set foot in a lab or into the field to verify their claims.
edarrell, with due respect, I think you are living in a strange vacuum.
edarrell is plagued by his Darwinian jaundice view of ID. My guess is that edarrell would not consider the scientific works of Gonzalez, Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, ReMine, Ross, Rana, McGrath, Skell, Steinberg and the likes have any data content. I would also venture that he has never seen any of the Darwinian derisive comments toward these scientists’ works by Dawkins, PZ Myer, infidel.org, PT, NCSE, Coddington, Provine, Pigliucci, and the likes. Hopefully these are the reasons for edarrell’s misinformed opinion.
What vacuum? I posed a question — and you guys don’t answer it.
Name names, please, to support your claim: Name someone who has been called “ignorant” or “unscientific” for questioning any part of Darwinian theory, who came in with data to support their claim.
No one fits that description.
And why shouldn’t people who criticize with no support be accurately labeled “ignorant” or “unscientific?”
Name names. I have called your bluff.
You’re at least partly right: I consider Behe to have contributed no data. Of course, he agrees.
And Wells? He’s not published any data. Teh others? Name the data, if you claim it’s there.
edarrell, do you have a comprehension problem? I gave you a list of names of Datwinists that are derisive of skeptics of Darwinism. This is at least twice now that you’ve not pay more attention to what you are responding to. And I know I am right about your jaundice close minded view to ID evidences. True to your Darwinian form, you are only interested in denial of ID evidences and engage in deliberate brainwashing of public opinions. You are busted — When Ignorance and Arrogance Collide.
I’ve always found this appeal to what “a majority of scientists” believe (or think or accept) as somewhat amusing. How many times in the history of science has what “a majority of scientists” believed or thought been reversed by some crank, who went on to become a noted giant in science? What does the belief of the majority have to do with anything?