Replies

"The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance."

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges. Gilder's right.

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has

Please identify a piece of criticism of the theory of evolution that is worthy of an sympathetic, intelligent reading.

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges. Gilder's right.

That relates directly to the nature of the challenges; when we hear "2nd law of thermodynamics" and "were you there?" and "its just a theory" for the 50th time, what response would you expect?

Bring science and you will be listened to. Bring junk science or creation "science" and you will be treated poorly. Why would you expect anything different?

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has.

Scientists only have to respond to scientific charges.

"Darwinism" is not a science but a philosophy and a strawman attack (try using "ToE", it's shorter and more accurate), so don't expect politeness from the people you misrepresent with the word.

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges. Gilder's right.

Like Guilder, you make a lot of assertions without providing any support.

In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges

Please present a serious scientific challenge. One that relies on natural phenomena. TToE is always self-adjusting as more evidence is uncovered. Today's TToE is quite different than the one initially drafted by Darwin (although the overall foundation work is very much in force).

I await your scientfic challenge (or even a reference to one).

Because anyone who raises problems with Darwinism is slapped down as a neanderthal (no pun intended), as a "religionist," as an adherent to backwood superstitions, is typically silenced in academia, run off, shouted-down, scorned, looked-down upon, sued by the ACLU, despite the real problems that Darwinism has. In other words, Darwinism isn't a science, but is a worldview that is protected by a fortress mentality. It doesn't answer objections, but only attempts to destroy its detractors. It neither welcomes nor entertains serious challenges. Gilder's right.

####

I wish I could write as well as you. Great synopsis of the situation.

Sorry -- Derbyshire already shot down that silly argument:

In George's example the original thinker was Max Planck, whose first publication on his revolutionary quantum theory of radiation was in 1900. Poor Max Planck was so thoroughly shunned and ostracized by that glowering, starched-collar Panel of Peers for daring to present ideas that violated their settled convictions, that five years later they made him president of the German Physical Society, and in 1918 gave him the Nobel Prize for Physics! Those mean, blinkered scientific establishmentarians!

Really, creationists could give the Bush-stole-the-election-both-times DUmmie crowd lessons in the care and feeding of a vicim complex.