Home » Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design » Irrevocably Mired in the 19th Century

Irrevocably Mired in the 19th Century

Over at ARN, David Tyler has a blog post entitled We must “understand that there is no serious scientific challenge to evolution.” It references an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article was authored by Eugenie Scott and Nicholas Matzke of the National Center for Science Education, an organization whose sole purpose appears to be the promotion of Darwinian orthodoxy in publicly funded education, and the suppression of any and all scientific dissent from any aspect of the “theory,” by any means available.

David Tyler:

Eugenie Scott and Nicholas Matzke, from the National Center for Science Education, offer their analysis of how ID is making “a serious challenge not in the world of science, but in the world of public educational policy.” It is a paper that reworks the NCSE position without contributing any new ideas to the debate.

These authors reveal an unqualified confidence that evolutionary theory has the answers. It is “replete with explanations for complex biological structures.” It “continues to make progress in explaining such fascinating structures”. They assert that there is “no serious scientific challenge to evolution.” Underpinning theory are “fertile and unifying evolutionary principles.”


This would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Evolutionary theory is replete with made-up stories (especially about complex biological structures) that ignore evidence and don’t withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. It has made no progress whatsoever in explaining such fascinating structures, and is irrevocably mired in the 19th century.

In his post, David links to my UD essay, The Miracle of Co-option, in support of the claim that there are indeed serious scientific and logical problems with certain “fertile and unifying” Darwinian principles.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

11 Responses to Irrevocably Mired in the 19th Century

  1. The noteworthiness of this one escapes me. What else would you expect from neo-darwinist apologists?

  2. To continue…

    I grew up in what some people consider a pseudo-Christian cult. When I left this sect in my early twenties, I began a furious investigation into many religious and philosophical points of view. This quest led to many interesting conversations with many people, and to many interesting books. One thing I found interesting was the zeal and confidence that so many adherents had with respect to their particular views – views I often considered patently ridiculous and unsubstaniated – despite these folks having perfectly normal, and often above normal, intelligence.

    Each group has it’s army of apologist writers whose essential punchline was that all was well, that all of the criticisms had been “answered long ago”, etc, etc. This is the common theme.

    Eugenie is no different than any other dogmatic apologist I’ve encountered. She’s an apologist for a particular ideology that she probably has quite an investment in. Her statements don’t surprise me.

  3. “Each group has it’s army of apologist writers whose essential punchline was that all was well, that all of the criticisms had been “answered long ago”, etc, etc. This is the common theme.”

    My experience has mirrored yours, and I have come to the same conclusion. Honestly, I really don’t know what I believe anymore, but at least I can spot these types from a mile away. IMO Darwinists are clearly some of the most “religious” folks I’ve ever encountered.

  4. OFF TOPIC FOLLOWS:
    http://science.slashdot.org/ar.....18/1450238

    “A new research paper is creating some buzz about the roles of computer engineering in biology. Historically, computational techniques in genome sequencing have proved useful in predicting which DNA sequence produces which amino acid and which amino acid sequence produces which protein. Now, this new research is leading towards a robust model of proteins and their messaging systems. This is one step further in understanding the basics of life and, consequently, pushes us closer to being able to emulate organisms entirely from the bottom up instead of our failed prior approaches of from the top down. A long way from perfect, but an opening into a wide field of study and maybe even a new division of biology.”

  5. SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC

    This

    http://www.isi.org/lectures/le.....f30e049aec

    is an excellent debate between two BIG guys, Dr. William Dembski and Dr. Lee Silver.

    Unlike many of these dabates, this one does not plunge in to ad hominem and appeals emotion but stays on track; a pleasure to watch.

    Many thanks to both the debaters for giving us this debate!

  6. mike1962: “The noteworthiness of this one escapes me.”

    The noteworthiness is that scientific and intellectual lightweights like Scott and Matzke get published in PNAS on the basis of academic philosophical correctness, and that brilliant biochemists and molecular biologists like Michael Behe, who actually do science and follow the evidence where it leads, would never stand a chance of being published in such a journal, regardless of the weight of evidence or the solidity of the argumentation or logic.

  7. GilDodgen,

    Oh, I know what you mean. But it’s kind of like pointing out another instance of an alligator doing alligator things.

    I have been wondering lately why ID-friendly scientists don’t just start some of their own peer reviewed journals. Sometimes it’s impossible to put new wine in old wine skins, and all that.

  8. Creationists have already done that. The International Journal for Creation Research for example. http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/
    It hasn’t stopped darwinists from saying that creationists don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals, but as long as that isn’t the aim, it might be a good idea.

  9. mike1962 – ID-friendly scientists did exactly what you suggested, and did precisely that:
    PCID

    I’m genuinely surprised by how little has been published since 2005.

    Bob

  10. Hi Bob:

    Re: I’m genuinely surprised by how little has been published since 2005.

    Oh: y’mean, like, ahm . . . — post-Sternberg, and now post-Gonzalez?

    GEM of TKI

  11. kairosfocus – I don’t see your point. Why would this stop any of the ISCID fellows from publishing? They’ve already nailed their colours to the mast.

    Bob

Leave a Reply