Home » Darwinism, Evolution » “The Scientific Case Against Darwinism Is Largely Won”

“The Scientific Case Against Darwinism Is Largely Won”

Here’s a note from a senior biologist colleague (not Behe, not Minnich, not anybody widely known for his views on ID) regarding Darwinism:

It is important to make clear that there are two distinct parts of the issue, the scientific and the metaphysical. The scientific case against Darwinism is largely won. Evolutionary theory is constrained to a small part of biology. It is irrelevant to most of the life sciences. Most life science researchers know that. They constantly express surprise at new discoveries that were not expected based on evolutionary theory (e.g., the fugu genome or the bird-like mammal, the platypus, to name two for this week). They don’t use concepts in evolutionary biology in their research except in unusual cases. The metaphysical part is the worldview aspect, and that is what causes most of the pushback from Darwinists and the scientific establishment.

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

13 Responses to “The Scientific Case Against Darwinism Is Largely Won”

  1. Which biologist states this?

  2. On Platypus, Duck and Water-Rat

    Over at Demsski’s blog he cites an (un-named) “senior biologist”:
    It is important to make clear that there are two distinct parts of the issue, the scientific and the metaphysical. The scientific case against Darwinism is largely won. Evolutionary t…

  3. A fun game

    We did this once before, but Billy Dembski got snookered, so we’ll try it again.

    One of these is a bird, the other is one of the following:
    a bird
    a mammal
    a “bird-like mammal”
    A patented TfK/TEP pat on the back to anyone who correctly identi…

  4. Worldview of Darwinism

    A quote from the blog Uncommon Descent strengthens what I said in my previous post, namely, that the impetus of the attacks against ID does not come from scientific objections but largely from the worldview of the scientists who are objecting….

  5. What a bunch of stupid disseminating from the Darwinian narrative apologist at Stranger Fruit.

    A beak, webbed feet, lays eggs, and has “duck” in the common name. The best the dummy at Stranger fruit can do is make a lame issue over calling it “bird-like”? HAHAHAHA – thanks for confirming that the scientific case against Darwinism IS largely won.

  6. Dr William Bill Dembski, and members of the Dembski BLOG

    I have read several of your books and followed your blog for months. Wow what energy you people have!! To introduce myself I am an interdisciplinary scientist with a thirty-year research program which has been a synthesis of physics and biology at a most fundamental level. Specifically I study the intersection of energy flow, thermodynamics with life. My PhD was in geology (I was a classmate with Stephen Gould in Graduate School) but in the 40 years since then I have had high positions in the scientific agencies in Washington, directed A National laboratory for the Environmental Protection Agency, taught at several universities and all the while working on theoretical issues. Over the past decade while living in the Montana much of that work has come together with a recent book, Into The Cool, which I co-wrote with Dorion Sagan.
    This book about thermodynamics and life shows how the obscure science of thermodynamics is behind much of the complexity we see in nature; important to the manifestation of life whether it be its origin, it’s evolution or it’s contribution to the human experience. The publication of our book Into the Cool has galvanized some of the Intelligent Design movement who believe that thermodynamics proves a vital theoretical blow to the scientific facts of evolution. The interest in this material seems immense. A Goggle search has 705,000 hits on the phrase “thermodynamics and life” and 569,000 hits for the phrase “evolution and thermodynamics”

    Bill, As the intellectual leader of the ID movement, do you see a problem with thermodynamics and present evolutionary theory? If so could you give me some references? I am looking forward to your reply and working with you.

    We do have a website that provides a detailed description of our to soon-to-be released
    (June 2) book Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life (University of Chicago Press 2005). This is not an advertisement for our book, as much of the important issues in our book are on the web page for free. About 8 percent of the book’s text and 35 percent of the figures are on the web page so that the main themes of the book are available online.

    Read more about complexity, thermodynamics, and life. Come and pitch in.
    http://www.intothecool.com and
    http://www.intothecool.com/blog/

    I plan to be availible to the group on issues dealing with thermodynamics and evolution.

    Eric D. Schneider

  7. On the platypus

    See how the platypus nose is totally different than the duck nose? Sure, with the skin on, they’re pretty similar, but underneath, they’re totally different. This is why I sincerely doubt that Dembski’s friend is actually much of a biologist. How co…

  8. Hi Eric D. Schneider,

    Since you addressed your post to Dr. Dembski and the others here, I thought I would extend my greetings to you. I congratulate you on your fine career as a scientist and your work with Dorion Sagan (Lynn Margulis son and co-author, I believe).

    The ISCID discussion board would be a good place to discuss those issues. Sources of entropy, such as the 2nd law will increase K-complexity in informatic structures that permit entropy to affect the sybolic content in a significant way. But from mathematical considerations alone, that would tend to erode “specified improbability” out of the system, especially structures that might be characterized as obeying rules of formal grammars. A Brainstorm on that issue and others is being explored at:

    http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub.....00562.html

    Respected origin-of-life researchers, Harold Morowitz who teaches at my school testified on thermodynamics against the creationists in the landmark McLean vs. Arkansas, 1982. Ironically, he has an interesting perspective that is sympathetic to design (though he is not an IDist as far as I know). He ties mind, design, and thermodyanmics. I mention it in the opening post over there.

    Registering at ISCID may take a little doing, but we look forward to hearing from you. We do appreciate your contributions to the discussion.

    Salvador Cordova

  9. [...] covery that is not “expected based on evolutionary theory”. Meanwhile over at Dembski’s blog, the even articulate “DaveScot” [...]

  10. Salvador, Thanks for finding me. You look like a group of excellent technical people I will join your discusssion. I am having problems posting on the web site. I will work it out. I got a nice note from Bill and he sent me more material. Thanks again Eric D. Schneider
    http://www.intothecool.com

  11. Oh dear. I’ve upset the peanut gallery.

  12. John Lynch at Stranger Fruit has taken to removing the vowels from my comments on his blog.

    http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=351

    What a wonderful demonstration of what Darwinian apologists do with things they don’t want to hear.

    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

    LOL – I might have to rethink the matter of whether man is descended from monkeys at least in John M. Lynch’s case.

  13. [...] they are the intellectual equivalent of spam. Update: I just read “DaveScot”s comment over at Dembski’s blog. He’s out of here.

    [...]

Leave a Reply