Science

If only Darwinists could come up with a body of convincing scientific evidence to support Darwin’s theory: after 150 years of assuring us, such evidence surely must exist. As recently as May of this year, the best that a Darwinist as prominent as Professor Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine could come up with as examples of evolution in action was: (1) bacterial resistance to antibiotics; (2) insect resistance to pesticides; and (3) the evolution of fur coloring of desert rodents. (Ayala, “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (May 2007).) These examples of “evolution” appear to be microevolution in action; none of them even approach the level of one species “evolving” into another species. On the other hand, there are aspects of the fossil record, such as the Cambrian Explosion, that appear to contradict Darwin’s theory of small gradual changes over time, and for which neo-Darwinism still offers no plausible explanation. (Ayala wisely avoids the subject in his article, by starting his history of modern life after the Cambrian Explosion.) Stasis and “living fossils” are another paradox of Darwinian evolution. Yet according to Ayala, the bacteria that are the oldest organisms on Earth have not changed at all in the billions of years of their existence! This observation does not help Darwinian evolution explain the origin of new types of living organisms.

Why is a Fly Not a Horse?
By Giuseppe Sermonti
Discovery Institute Press, 2005, 166 pages
ISBN-10: 0-9638654-7-1

Editor of the Italian biology journal “Revista de Biologia,” (one of the world’s oldest biology journals) Giuseppe Sermonti explains why evolution resembles a “paradigm” more than it does an explanation. Scientists assume that the theory and its implications (such as universal common descent) are true, but no one can ever explain the details of precisely why it is. According to Sermonti, naturalistic theories of biological origins are science-stoppers.

So, the benighted brites at the New York Times are suddenly all agog over the deep ponderings of Oxford’s Nick Bostrom (never mind that it isn’t really a new idea at all — it’s been bubbling up for a few years now). What exactly has them so excited, you ask? Well, Bostrom thinks we all might just be an eleborate Sims game for some sort of advanced video game addict. Seriously.

He has “thoughtfully” proposed the idea that this world, your reality, is nothing more than a very advanced simulation, an illusion, if you will. In fact, he thinks that this simulation might just be running inside another simulation, inside another simulation, inside another simulation on and on back, forever and ever amen.

Have you ever spent time pondering the intellectual pedigree of scientism–say, of the Dawkins variety? It would be nice if folly really were an orphan, but unfortunately he is not. And Herbert Spencer was only one link, though an important one, in a long chain of Western scientism.

Consider this Spencerian quote from Steven Shapin’s recent New Yorker article “Man with a Plan: Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Everything“:

Michael Egnor recently wrote about the great difficulties faced by origin of life researchers and the great speculation they are willing to undertake to retain natural chemical explanations for origin of life. This reminds of events in the early 1900’s, when some leading scientists had philosophical objections to new ideas in cosmology. In 1931, leading cosmologist Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in response to Big Bang cosmology, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole.” Even Einstein was troubled by the fact that his own theories showed “the necessity for a beginning.” In fact, he added a “cosmological constant” to his equations to avoid Read More ›

The National Research Council’s report — The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems — is a must read. Not for the science — what there is of it can be summed up simply: we have no clue how life began. No, the report is a must read for the insight it offers into the current state of origin of life research:

Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren today has an interesting piece titled “The Limits of Darwinism,” an obvious nod to Michael Behe’s recent book, which is subtitled, “The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.”Warren starts with an interesting questions: In this case, we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. He finds that it is likely because atheist materialism treats Darwinian evolution as a sort of holy writ that cannot be criticized. Much of the “star chamber” atmosphere, that has accompanied the public invigilation of microbiologists such as Michael J. Behe, and other very qualified scientists working on questions of design in natural systems, can only be explained Read More ›

[Editor’s Note: This is the first of a series of essential readings we’re highlighting in the evolution-ID debate]

The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories
By Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen
The Philosophical Library of New York, 1984, 228 pages
ISBN 0-929510-02-8

A seminal work for the theory of intelligent design, this book provides a scientific critique of the prevailing paradigmatic theories of chemical evolution. The authors include Discovery fellows Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley, and they conclude that the prebiotic soup from which the first cell supposedly arose is a myth. The Miller-Urey experiments employed an unrealistic gas mixture, and there is no geological evidence for its existence in Earth’s distant past. The “soup” faces a myriad of other problems, such as inevitable rapid destruction at the hands of radiation.

We’ve gotten a couple of e-mails challenging my observation in a recent post that questioning Darwin’s theory in a public school is a federal crime. The reader implied that, because there is no federal statute explicitly censoring criticism of Darwin’s theory in public schools, it wasn’t a federal crime to do so. The issue of censorship in science classes in public schools is worth examining more closely.

Is it a federal crime to question Darwin’s theory in a public school? In some public schools it certainly is. It’s a federal crime to violate a federal court ruling, such as the ruling by federal judge John E. Jones banning criticism of Darwin’s theory in the curriculum of biology classes in Dover, Pennsylvania public schools. Disobeying Judge Jones’ ruling would be a violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Part1, Chapter 21, section 401, which reads:

An Associated Press article titled “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution” explains that common popular conceptions of human evolution are incorrect: “Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.” Indeed, the inappropriateness of such “straight line” depictions of human evolution was one of Jonathan Wells’ main points in chapter 11 in Icons of Evolution, “From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon.” A Harvard biological anthropologist stated the newly reported fossils reveal, “how poorly we understand the transition from being something much more apelike to something more humanlike.” The Associated Press article goes on to explain why Homo habilis can no longer Read More ›