The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[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.

[xzins]

It could be fun:

How is a gold different from a goldfish? :>)

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

How is a gold different from a goldfish? :>)

LOLOL!

I'm sure we'll be breaking down rocks and rabbits - or gold and goldfish - again discovering the same particles and fields at bottom. And again, as before, noting at some point the goldfish or rabbit passed from life to death as we broke him down.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

All of us baby boomers and earlier remember the textbooks with the primordial soup/protein sea/lightning strike stories about the origin of life. Deny as much as they want, I KNOW that darwinianism taught darwinian abiogenesis.

You are absolutely correct.

When Crick and Watson discovered the DNA and its implications understood it threw a big monkey wrench into their theory.

The cell was supposed to be a simple sack of protoplasmatic mass. OUCH!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Well obviously it exists in people and animals.

Good, a common point of belief! :)

The question is whether it is consistent with the picture painted by Darwinians of people and animals.

I posit that it is consistent - and in fact representative - of the theory of evolution! In certain species, group-action has taken root, to better that species. In others (like in Bengal tigers, or eagles, or baleen whales) individual tactics still dominate because that is best suited to their normal environment.

In the species I posted, it is behavior that OPTIMIZES their survival in their environment. For the Harris hawk, they normally feed on small rodents and lizards (we had very few around our place in Chile - I fed them scraps of chicken when there weren't enough lizards, just to keep them around!). In the areas they normally hunt, there is a lot of thick underbrush and the earth is filled with small holes. Escape of prey is a LOT easier than with prairie dogs in the Midwest, or salmon in the rivers of the Northwest.

For lions, their predominant prey is as big - or bigger - than themselves. It takes several to bring down a water buffalo, or zebra, or small elephant. Lions are fiercesome, powerful, and have incredible stamina - but are slow. But a pride is deadly to larger, slower animals on the open plain.

Conversely, the tiger is a solitary beast in the jungle where hunting in packs does not work, because you cannot see your prey all the time. And the tiger is larger (two or three times) than the female lion, because it must take its prey on its own. But in a jungle - where you cannot see more than 10 feet, and cannot hear past 30 (jungles are pretty noisy places), pack-hunting does not work.

Baleen whales are individual feeders. Why? Their "prey" doesn't flee at all. Krill are essentially one step above plants, in terms of intelligence...:) They float along in huge blooms. And the whales take passes through them. Easy to do, no extra energy expended.

The Orca's prey, though, tends to be herring and salmon, both of which are as fast - and MUCH more maneuverable than the Orca. Hunting in pods is really the only way to develop a steady diet (other than the occasional, daydreaming seal).

I would submit that such behavior is, by its own existence, evidence of an evolutionary path. That the fact each genus - great cats, whales, predatory birds - has species with fundamentally different feeding behaviors (the most base behavior of all - how to eat) - shows that the behavior arose because of their environmental and food-source differences, not in spite of it.

Given that, it would render the arguments about "evolution says it's always dog-eat-dog" moot; the evidence clearly indicates otherwise.

Darwinians

And by the way, I know you like to use the pejoratives "Darwinians" and "Darwinists", but if anything it is the theory of evolution, so if you have to use a name, call supporters of evolution - evolutionists (small e). It is not a god, nor a religion, nor a single man but a scientific theory profered, refined, and researched for 150 years.

Unless you refer to believers in gravity as Newtonites? Or believers in the helio-centric model of the solar system Copernicans?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I would like to take a crack at your questions. If you don't mind.

1. What is the undeniable evidence of intelligent design? What is the proof, other than observation (which is the same level of proof used by believers of the theory of evolution)?

The fact that you're asking this question with the aid of a computer over the internet is the proof. Intelligent Design is inferential through observation and logic.

2. Why does the presence of an intelligent designer mean that evolution is wrong?

The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition. Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution.

[tacticalogic]

The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition. Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution.

How about if we say God invented the Big Bang, and everything after that was a result of it's design?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

And by the way, I know you like to use the pejoratives "Darwinians" and "Darwinists", but if anything it is the theory of evolution, so if you have to use a name, call supporters of evolution - evolutionists (small e). It is not a god, nor a religion, nor a single man but a scientific theory profered, refined, and researched for 150 years.

And therein lies the problem. Defining "evolution" is like trying to nail jello to a wall. The theory is always (pardon the pun) "evolving".

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

How about if we say God invented the Big Bang, and everything after that was a result of it's design?

That's more believable than the atheist's, (e.g. Dawkins), ex nihilo explanation for sure.

[tacticalogic]

Defining "evolution" is like trying to nail jello to a wall. The theory is always (pardon the pun) "evolving".

The process of defining "religion" has started to look an awful lot like the same kind of process Congress uses to define "interstate commerce".

[tacticalogic]

That's more believable than the atheist's, (e.g. Dawkins), ex nihilo explanation for sure.

If that's a good explaination, then the argument isn't with evolution, but with atheism.

[Jim W N]

Darwin's evolution theory is a hoax. Again, there's no evidence to support species jumping, essential in its flawed explanation of the diversity of life and the origins thereof. On the other hand evidence of intelligent design is everywhere. How long will Darwinists blindly follow their atheistic doctrine/"religion"?

[Jim W N]

Which means, I assume, that no evidence supporting it is needed?

Bad assumption. Self-evident means that the evidence is so overwhelming that it hardly needs explanation. Evidence of intelligent design is in you and around you. Everywhere.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

If that's a good explanation, then the argument isn't with evolution, but with atheism.

Yes

A true and consistent evolutionist can't admit to the possibility of a god. If he were to do so the whole theory and the positivist philosophy behind it would unravel.

So he has to keep his finger in the dike so to speak.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The fact that you're asking this question with the aid of a computer over the internet is the proof. Intelligent Design is inferential through observation and logic.

I see. So observation and logic are good for creation; what about the observations of micro and macro evolution? Logic applied to the thought that "these two animals look similar, but have different ways of dealing with their geographically disparate environment, thus the differences in their looks and behavior arose from their environment". Does that not also work?

The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition

They are? How? Intelligent Design fundamentally attacks how it started. Evolution addresses how it's continued. So how are they mutually exclusive, other than the fact they address fundamentally different questions?

Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution.

And that therefore unifies the two, meaning they are not exclusive, correct?

[tacticalogic]

A true and consistent evolutionist can't admit to the possibility of a god. If he were to do so the whole theory and the positivist philosophy behind it would unravel.

I see. So they can't postit that God invented evolution. If there is a God, there can be no evolution.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

And therein lies the problem. Defining "evolution" is like trying to nail jello to a wall. The theory is always (pardon the pun) "evolving".

Then it shows the ignorance of the anti-evolutionists. A theory - by definition - is not fixed! It is a changeable, mutable, tested hypothesis that has not been proven as 100% fact. When that happens (like with mutual attraction of non-zero mass - gravity, or electron mobility in conductors - Ohm's Law) we call it a law.

To expect the theory of evolution to be fixed now and forever is to ignore the root word theory.

This is fundamentally the difference between science and faith; science is an approach, a process, and will see its fundamental tenets change over time because of discovery and testing.

Faith, on the other hand, may be "stressed" but ultimately is untestable as a concrete, tangible process or thing. It is what the believer wishes it to be, and there is no way to change that for it does not rest on observations, nor hard data.

[Jim W N]

I believe in Intelligent Design. I also believe that God designed it so as to be perfectly indistinguishable from evolution.

Evolution within a species, yes. But ID is definitely distinguishable from Darwin's evolution and explanation of varieties of species. One huge problem - there's no evidence of species jumping to another species, which is essential for evolution to hold together. On the other hand, evidence is everywhere of intelligent design, pointing to an Intelligent Creator that did the designing. His glory is in the variety of his creation.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Self-evident means that the evidence is so overwhelming that it hardly needs explanation. Evidence of intelligent design is in you and around you. Everywhere.

OK, then here is how it was Intelligently Designed:

---

Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.

From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'

A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.

The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.

---

So that is how it was designed, right?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

A true and consistent evolutionist can't admit to the possibility of a god.

I am a true and consistent evolutionist. And I believe in God (the Christian God).