Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sunset of Darwinism
tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset

The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s
introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm

Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

  1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; crevolist; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign; supernaturaldesign; tfp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 661-664 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2008 8:52:03 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Very interesting.


2 posted on 06/13/2008 8:54:01 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Ho-hum!


3 posted on 06/13/2008 8:56:03 PM PDT by Hiddigeigei (Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. [Arnold Toynbee])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Nice to read on a Friday evening near Midnight where I am...

Thank GOD - it’s almost MIDNIGHT for the Darwinian (satanic) Lie that has decieved and helped destroy multiplied millions....

And that it is, perhaps, once again, Daybreak with the Daystar rising in the hearts and minds of millions more who may be able to glimps the awe and majesty and worth of their own lives, created in the Image of our Creator God!


4 posted on 06/13/2008 9:00:58 PM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt (communism killed 100 milion people in 20th century.only cause USA did not give it chance to succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Oh-oh. Now you've done it.

Beep TTT

5 posted on 06/13/2008 9:03:22 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Oh, no. NTSA


6 posted on 06/13/2008 9:06:36 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Leftists stop arguing when they see your patriotism, your logic, your CAR-15 and your block of C4.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

So if we’re to discount evolution because of a supposed lack of proof, then how did life arise, and what proof is there for that method?


7 posted on 06/13/2008 9:10:09 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Don't waste your breath or the electrons to send it.

The FRaliban is awake tonight! :`)

(My favorite point is that with many of these people, you can take their FR bios, remove the words Jesus and God, then substitute the words Mohammad and Allah and you would think you were reading the teachings of some mad Ayatollah!)

8 posted on 06/13/2008 9:16:44 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Leftists stop arguing when they see your patriotism, your logic, your CAR-15 and your block of C4.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences.

There is plenty of evidence in old (and not so old) Darwinian books to support this. You can download many of them here: Darwinism-Eugenics. Scroll down to the Resources section.

9 posted on 06/13/2008 9:18:52 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
NTSA

YTSA.

Forever and ever, Amen.

= )

10 posted on 06/13/2008 9:32:03 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Advice taken. Have a good night!


11 posted on 06/13/2008 9:43:49 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit.

Nonsense.

Scientists have been hearing this for nearly 150 years now, and it still isn't true except in the minds of adherents to some of the more fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Nor will repetition not make it true.

12 posted on 06/13/2008 9:46:52 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Nor will repetition not make it true.

[editing artifact corrected]

13 posted on 06/13/2008 9:49:06 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Best scientific answers coalesce when one can observe, measure, replicate by experiment, and compute formulas for a phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.

One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Elegant mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion. Rigorous debate continues.

At the other extreme is Darwinism, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Scientists contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything. Yet evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality. All debate prohibited.

Darwinist advocates contend arguments against require the intrusion of God. Yet good theologians of desert religions would say a god hedged in by observation, measurement, experiment, and computation ends up equivalent to the golden calf the Israelites constructed in the wilderness. Their God can only be found by mystical, faith encounter. Investigation requires sceptical, rigorous intrusion by scientists equivalent to the theoretical physicists of String Theory, who neither tremble before, nor reach for religious heresy.


14 posted on 06/13/2008 9:50:04 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I read the posting but somehow missed the evidence that falsified evolution. Could you be so kind as to point it out. The article is gibberish without it.


15 posted on 06/13/2008 9:54:55 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
“Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility.

Darwinism, or more accurately, the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, is not about the origin of life. It is about changes in the gene pool of a population over time.

Once one understands the meaning of the term, it becomes clear that there is no shortage of experimental evidence to support evolutionary theory. People like the author are delusional if they think otherwise.

16 posted on 06/13/2008 10:02:44 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Darwinism is basically a fraud. Intelligent Design on the other hand is basically a self-evident truth. How things have continued they way they have for so long in our educational system, with Darwinism being taught as fact and Creationism almost ignored, is a testament to man’s ability to deny the undeniable.


17 posted on 06/13/2008 10:03:48 PM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Its the undeniable evidence of intelligent design which points to an Intelligent Designer.


18 posted on 06/13/2008 10:06:35 PM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
I read the posting but somehow missed the evidence that falsified evolution.

Darwinism fails some simple tests.

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species. This inconsistency, between Darwin's theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by 'Darwinism's Dilemma'. The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing.

David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales


19 posted on 06/13/2008 10:07:12 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; LeGrande
Another insurmountable problem with Darwinism is the lack of any evidence of species jumping which is critical for evolution as a viable explanation for the origin of existence.
20 posted on 06/13/2008 10:13:54 PM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 661-664 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson