Feb 212006

A few other ID blogs have posted on Eric Davidson’s article in Science. I will not repeat what they have already so insightfully pointed out. (I will save the whole topic of evodevo for the future) Instead I would like to focus on the DaveScot’s title for his post at Uncommon Descent, “PZ Myers Has An Epiphany”.

The truth is Myers is not alone in his epiphany, I would say any Darwinists who truly understands neo-Darwinian evolution already has this epiphany. The Darwinian priesthood (Darwinian scientists) is desperately trying to hide this revelation from the rubes. If the Darwinian rubes ever find out the truth their whole religion would fall apart.

How does the priesthood hide the truth from their rubes? Hide it in plain sight. Let me explain. The Darwinian priesthood has known for sometime now, the neo-Darwinian fairy tale just don’t measure up to scientific scrutiny. Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time”.

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries “missing links”, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps…

From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History confirms what Gee is saying

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job . . .. If you ask, ‘What is the evidence for continuity?’ you would have to say, There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.

Geneticist Sean Carroll writing on neo-Darwinian evolution.*

“The two greatest revolutions in biology, those in evolution and genetics, were driven by such insights. Darwin explained the parade of species in the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms as products of natural selection over eons of time. Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents. As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, they were incomplete. Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.

The key to understanding form is development, the process through which a single-celled egg gives rise to a complex, multi-billion-celled animal. This amazing spectacle stood as one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology for nearly two centuries. And development is intimately connected to evolution because it is through changes in embryos that changes in form arise. Over the past two decades, a new revolution has unfolded in biology. Advances in developmental biology and evolutionary development biology (dubbed “Evo Devo”) have revealed a great deal about the invisible genes and some simple rules that shape animal form and evolution. Much of what we have learned has been so stunning and unexpected that it has profoundly reshaped our picture of how evolution works. Not a single biologist, for example, ever anticipated that the same genes that control the making of an insect’s body and organs also control the making of our bodies.” — Sean Carroll, “Endless Forms Most Beautiful”, pg ix-x (emphasis added)

Distinguished IU Professor Michael Lynch, authoritative scientist of evolutionary population genetics agrees.

However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity. Building a straw man based on natural selection alone makes it easy for opponents to poke holes in evolution. But features of the genome, such as genomic parasites or non-coding introns, which aren’t so evolutionarily favourable (nor obviously ‘intelligent’ innovations), can be more readily explained by models that include random genetic drift and mutation as substantial evolutionary forces.

Let’s stop here for a moment and look at what we have. These are not some deceitful ID scientists or evil Creationists who are making these statements. These are dyed in the wool Darwinists, fully committed to naturalistic evolution. What are they all saying? Yes there is no fossil evidence to support macroevolution. To claim that there is evidence that demonstrates macroevolution is not science, it is nothing more than a bedtime story. Furthermore, empirically we now know that natural selection and gradual genetic random mutations is insufficient to produce many aspects of biological diversity or how they evolved. This is astounding, because for the last 150 years we’ve been told that RM&NS is more than enough to explain all the biodiversity on earth from non-living matter. According to Michael Lynch we’ve long known that this is not true, so why this memo have not reached the rubes yet? I think I know the answer to this question, but before I let you in on it, let me give you another quote.

I saved the best for the last. This internet Darwinian fascist and devout rabid atheist, yes you guess it, PZ Myers. In a moment of weakness PZ Myers actually admits that there are deficiencies in the evolution theory.

There are a number of reasons why the current theory of evolution should be regarded as incomplete. The central one is that while “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, some important disciplines within biology, development and physiology, have only been weakly integrated into the theory.

Disclaimer: I am not accusing Myers of doubting Darwinism. NO! He is a Darwinian Prior you can’t reason with someone like that. What Myers is admitting to is that although evolution is a fact, the theory (not evidence) have gaps. It is the duty of the Darwinists to fill in those gaps with more fairy tales scientific explanations, thereby making the theory even more robust.

Myers like Lynch and Carroll recognizes, although doesn’t say it in so many words, that the existing theory of neo-Darwinian evolution is bankrupt to explain all the biodiversity. If the current theory is sufficient then it would not be necessary to integrate new ideas into the theory in order to explain the origin of new forms. The truth is that everything the Priors been telling the uninitiated, that the theory of evolution as expressed in macroevolution is a fact, are all lies. The Darwinian priesthood is scrambling to formulate the next hoax to hold the willing followers that Darwinian evolution is a fact. The Darwinian Priors must do this or they will lose their followers. Atheism can only be maintained by these Darwinian just-so stories.

Steve Weinberg who’s a physicist and notably anti-religious have said “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God”

It would blow Myers’s mind if he can’t be an atheists, that scenario does not exist in his worldview, that’s why he is a Darwinian Prior.

This brings me back to the beginning of this post, hiding in plain sight. Darwinian Priors like Myers knows that eventually people will see through these 150 year old fairy tales. New stories are needed in the pipeline, but they cannot admit that they have been completely wrong for the last one and a half century. So they’ve decided to spin the story that the theory is incomplete and we are just making the theory stronger.

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not wrong, but neither is it dogma. It was set up roughly 70 years ago with the knowledge that was available at the time, and it is not at all surprising that the explosion of new knowledge, especially in molecular biology, genetics, and developmental biology, means that there are radically different new ideas clamoring to be accommodated in the old framework. The theory is going to change. This isn’t cause for creationists to rejoice, though, because the way it is changing is to become stronger.

Myers and his Darwinian Priors can spin it any way that they want, but the fact remains is that they have not been able to produce a single piece of empirical evidence, based on the Darwinian theory of evolution in the last 150 years, that conclusively demonstrates macroevolution.

The next chapter in their fantasy only gets worst. The problem with the complexity of evodevo and popgen is even more daunting than RM&NS. The Darwinian believers like to accuse ID as the god of the gaps argument, when in fact it is the Darwinians who live on ignorance. Ignorance is the life’s blood of Darwinian evolution. It lives on the hope that one-day science will provide the solution to their ignorance, because they refuse to accept the answer of the present. The answer is that random, unguided mutations have demonstrated empirically, that it had not, does not, and can not provide the information that is necessary for the complex biodiversity that we see. It is like hoping that spontaneous generation is true if we just wait long enough.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 years ago

What is notable, is that they live in a denial. Every time someone points out to their own writings, they shout “quote mining”. So, in the end, “some deceitful ID scientists or evil Creationists are making these statements.” Now go figure.


[…] What I love about Darwinists is that every once in awhile you get something delicious like the ones that I’ve blogged about it here, here and here. This latest morsel comes from Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh (credit to Dembski @ UD for the find). According to this article, Schwartz thinks that “Darwin was wrong, and his modern-day adherents perpetuate his mistakes” . […]


[…] PZ mounted his defended his religion of Darwinism in the post Darwin and the vermiform appendix. PZ Myers is a Darwinian Prior, who refuse to allow silly things like facts stand in the way of his worship of atheism. So when a […]