The last five years: Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID
|September 2, 2011||Posted by O'Leary under Culture, Darwinism|
Every single one of those headlines is about “Darwinism” and “Darwinists” (whoever they are – their most important common characteristic appears to be they are government funded which rules me out).
Looking at the detail on the posts the only positive achievement I can see for ID is the controversial Dembski and Marks paper. All the rest is about perceived failures of this Darwinism.
Which is an excellent demonstration of missing the point. Failures of Darwinism are not merely a negative. They are a positive. The growing number of stress points at which Darwinism fails can, taken together, form a picture, one that points to general laws that govern how high levels of information are produced in life forms. Obviously, as with dpi, the more such points, the clearer the picture. We can’t have too many of them, though eventually, there will be enough to work productively with.
Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution is an instance of this approach. The upper limit on the change toward greater functional complexity that can be produced by Darwinism is telling us something.
Naturally, the people who have a vested interest in defending Darwinism (and most are publicly funded) work to undermine such a project and demand loyalty to Darwin. But a critical feature of the last five years has been the loosening of their capacity to censor, to shut down work in this area, as their recent setbacks have demonstrated. It’s not looking so good any more to be one of Darwin’s Rottweilers.
Dealing with Darwinian theory is like dealing with superstition: No set of facts could ever amount to refutation. A key Darwinist is supposed to have quipped long ago that he would doubt – if fossil rabbits were discovered in the Cambrian. Isn’t it far more likely that he’d proclaim the fossil rabbits as “Brilliant demonstration of the power of the theory?” Actually, something like fossil rabbits have been discovered in the Cambrian and, what did I tell you – it’s still “anti-science” to doubt Darwin. Put another way, if it’s Darwin, it will always be science to his devotees.
And the first stage of the ID community’s work continues.
Follow UD News at Twitter!