Home » Intelligent Design » IDEA UVa adviser, molecular geneticist and biochemist doubts Darwin

IDEA UVa adviser, molecular geneticist and biochemist doubts Darwin

Ultimate Questions

“Scientific knowledge is a malleable body of information that changes over time, as new tools are applied and new facts are integrated,” says Bryce Paschal, an associate professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at U.Va. “Good science identifies weak links in what is known. Science should acknowledge the shortcomings in evolutionary science, especially as regards what is known about transition species.”

An expert on nuclear transport and cell signaling, Paschal might seem an unlikely candidate to serve as faculty adviser for the IDEA Club….

“Regardless of the number of simple organisms on this earth, and regardless of how many simple molecules are found on other planets, the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Much to the IDEA club’s relief, Bryce Paschal was tenured a few months before becoming the IDEA faculty adviser. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that some individuals who would otherwise be willing to be IDEA advisers declined to do so because of job risk. I’m very grateful for Dr. Paschal’s willingness to be an IDEA adviser.

(thanks to Russ for alerting me to the article)


PS
Paul Gross, co-author with Barbara Forrest of Creationism’s Trojan Horse, is UVa Professor, emeritus. It’s personally gratifying to see many pro-ID science students and faculty at UVa. The medical college has several pro-ID MD’s teaching the next generation of doctors.

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

4 Responses to IDEA UVa adviser, molecular geneticist and biochemist doubts Darwin

  1. “Good science identifies weak links in what is known.”
    if evolutionary biology were quick to say, “we don’t know”as astro-physics is (with: dark matter, dark energy, the need for a ‘string theory’, the conflict between Einsteinian and quantum physics) then I would fully respect its methodological naturalistic position. However, evolutionary biology only acknowledges one weakness — abiogenesis, and is always quick to point out that the riddle of abiogenesis will be solved soon. It is this unwillingness to say, “we don’t know” that has me question the integrity of that particular science. Evolutionary biology has moved far beyond methodological naturalism, and has made a philisophical committment to naturalism, a committment that I have not found to be supported by the evidence.

    I know that I am an outsider, but as outsiders go, I am rather well read. I have not found compelling evidence for biological speciation, I have not found the essetial “punctuated equilibrium” to be credible, I cannot conceive of even deep time being anywhere near capable of producing some of the incredible complexity found in living organisms, I am compelled by the reality that evolution seems to have marched from the broadest taxonomical categories to the most narrow “in order” from domain, to kingdom, then philum, order, class, family, genus, then species. Might I add that Haldane’s dilemma merits being seriously addressed.

    There are just as many gaping gaps of knowledge in evolutionary biology as there are in physics. The difference between evolutionary biology and physics is that physics “identifies the weak links in what it knows.” Physics is “good science”.

  2. I salute Bryce Paschal. He has courage, and thankfully, tenure. The way the Darwinian Inquisition works in this country, I would be suprised if he would have been granted tenure after he expressed his heretical views.

    Has there ever been a documented case of a professor being granted tenure after he made public his dissent from the Church of Darwin?

  3. “Regardless of the number of simple organisms on this earth, and regardless of how many simple molecules are found on other planets, the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

    Thank you Bryce Paschal I couldn’t agree more with any other statement on this blog. Also with the whole pan-spermia theory (Transfering problem A elsewhere does not help solve anything). I rather believe in God than putting my faith in RM+NS.

    RM+NS=0 species

  4. Might I add that Haldane’s dilemma merits being seriously addressed.

    We need a more rigorous mathematical exploration of evolutionary theory.

    Supposedly all features of living organisms are the result of some new mutation.

    1. Are there enough mutations to account for the diversity of life?
    2. What is the likelihood of a mutation being lost or being spread?
    3. Can the species bear the cost?

    Evolutionary simulations or scenarios which fail to asnwer these three questions have no right to the claim of plausibility.

Leave a Reply