Here, we listed a few instances of non-Darwinian evolution hypotheses that we’ve covered. Prof. FX Gumby replies,
Well, yes. There are lots of potential non-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution. You also forgot to mention genetic drift. But they still don’t provide any support to ID.
Which reminds us of markf’s earlier comment, arguing that a recent self-organization proposal was a threat to design theory. To which we replied,
there are many non-Darwin theories of evolution out there that explain, each, a small part of the picture, and we have covered here as many as we encountered. None of them do away with the necessity of design; indeed, only Darwin’s theory was developed with that in mind, which explains both its attraction and the reason that Darwinists cannot share the stage even with other non-design theories of evolution.
The author of the Heredity paper suggests some form of self-organization. That probably means that his paper will fall down the memory hole promptly, along with all the others, but we will do what we can to keep the spark alive.
A bit fuller (still brief) explanation may be warranted, and we want to make clear at the outset that this explanation is not directed at markf or Prof. FX Gumby, for that would be a form of inanition. For the record, ID – seen from a UD News perspective – has several obvious interests:
1. Support for specifically ID research and publication. One thinks, for example, of recent books like The First Gene, offering an information theory look at the origin of life.
2. Support for intelligent, evidence-based dialogue among actual experts, as in, for example, The Nature of Nature
3. Support for the development of any responsible, evidence-based non-Darwinian approaches to evolution. Hughes’ recent paper comes to mind.
4. Exposure of the utter rottenness of contemporary Darwinism, as noted recently by Nobelist Laughlin. This is a true scandal in science, and covering up these scandals, all the way from Piltdown Man to Haeckel’s fake embryos and down to the present day, has spread and deepened the rot.* Consistent with that, we monitor shoddy research practices generally, along with efforts at censorship of opposing ideas, interference with academic employment decisions, assaults on people’s dignity, suborning of journals to publish academically unworthy hit pieces, and contempt for civil law perpetrated by the Darwin lobby. And by many other lobbies, but their activities are naturally the ones that attract the most attention around here. And we don’t by any means require that the target be an ID supporter to earn our sympathy. Darwin’s lobby is a problem, no matter who they target, especially now that they have decided to broaden their scope.
Those who oppose Darwin’s demand for submission and conversion are not facing a contrary intellectual position, they are up against an entrenched lobby, a no-holds-barred pressure group, where stakeholders have plenty of money, status, and power to protect.
We appreciate the chance to outline the aims of our news desk coverage, and hope readers will find it enjoyable and informative.
* The whitewash you probably heard was that these scandals show that “science is self-correcting.” Rubbish. If science had prevailed, both frauds would have been exposed quickly. They lingered for decades because it has been well over a century since Darwinism has been a science. So the corrected version reads: Science is self-correcting. Darwinism is not science and is corrected only with difficulty, even in the face of fraud.
Follow UD News at Twitter!