Has Darwinism Contributed Less to Science than Alchemy?
|February 28, 2007||Posted by GilDodgen under Biology, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Science|
On another UD thread there was discussion about an amazing piece of biological molecular machinery and the deficiencies of Darwinian processes to account for it. The bottom line is that Darwinists are looking in the wrong place for an explanation (random variation and natural selection), just as alchemists did when trying to figure out how to transform lead into gold (chemistry doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t deal with the nucleus of the atom). They both represent entirely inapplicable explanatory categories for the problems under consideration.
Jonathan Wells has an interesting essay on Darwinism and alchemy.
HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the real irony: The alchemists did contribute to the development of modern chemistry. What has Darwinian “theory” contributed to the advancement of the biological sciences?
Of course, there are also significant differences between alchemy and Darwinism. One is that alchemists were self-consciously searching for The Answer; Darwinists think they already have It. Another is that alchemy contributed many insights, materials and tools to the development of modern chemistry; Darwinism has almost nothing to contribute to the development of biology.
I think that Jonathan is much too liberal and generous in his evaluation of the contributions of Darwinian hypotheses to biology. This philosophy has derailed biological science and sent it down a dead-end path. It is a science-stopper.