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.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So the bacteria evolved in a purposeful manner?

Purposeful for the bacteria who can now thrive on a new food source - absolutely. It can now thrive and reduce competition with other non-nylon-eating bugs. Is it purposeful for my BBQ this evening? Heck no...:)

The bacteria developed new organs for a specific purpose?

Yes. Well, the equivalent of an organ for bacteria. Much like changes in the "brain" of a worm really is more in what we'd call a spinal column for anything else. But yes, new organs and enzymes for metabolizing the man-made materials.

Is this a result of a guided intelligent process or just some extremely good luck?

Don't know, but it is a sign of evolution. Whether it was intelligently designed to happen that way, or extremely good luck, or adaption I can't say for 100%. But it is a sign of evolution. A new species with new "organs" arising in response to a brand new food source.

Do you know if the ability to metabolize new chemicals is the result of transposable DNA being activated in the presence of a new food source?

Haven't a clue. Considering it includes new metabolizing pathways, I'd say it's a pretty significant mutation of the DNA.

Go read the link I posted, and follow up on the references. These are hard-core biological research papers, and you'll find quite a bit of information.

Is this absolute prove that evolution is 100% the only way life arose on Earth? No! But it is pretty strong proof that evolution - a change in physical characteristics and functionality in response to the environment - acutally happens.

[Jim W N]

...your contention is a religious belief,

Coyoteman, you're back and still haven't seen the light. I don't know if I can help.

If your mantra calling ID a religious belief makes you feel better so be it, but it does not change the fact that the evidence is clear and unmistakable. (I've already given you and others on this and previous threads, examples of the millions of pieces of evidence.)

Based on evidence, your evolution is much more of a religious belief than ID. Talk about blind faith. There's no evidence of species migrating into another species and yet you hold it as "scientific". Darwinism is a hoax.

ID on the other hand is a solid explanation for the origins of life, based on overwhelming evidence. I can take to the water, Coyoteman, but I can't make you drink.

[Jim W N]

I believe in the science of Darwinism, and I believe in the story of creation as written in the Bible. The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based.

Darwinism isn't true science since it doesn't have evidence of species migrating to another species. It is not practical at all but very flawed and requires an enormous amount of (blind) faith to adhere to it.

Creation is not faith-based, but based on overwhelming evidence of intelligence involved in the design of living things everywhere.

Practical facts support Creation and do not support Darwinism.

[Tramonto]

What is the difference between your definition and the one that I used, "evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." How is it dishonest?

Evolution as you define it is completely uncontroversial. Thats not what we are talking about though. Decent from a common ancestor through an unguided process is controversial and that is what is being discussed.

ID is based on the Theory of Evolution.

ID is not based on the ToE. ID is based on the fact that the best explanation for the origin of some biological systems is an intelligent cause.

The only problem with ID is that it has no value at all, it makes no predictions, it simply says that things are the way they are because that is the way things are.

This argument is ridiculous. According to you, if biological systems were in fact intelligently designed, there would no value in understanding this fact? It would be better to ignore the facts and pretend that neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the source of biological diversity? Your basic argument boils down to Darwinism is the truth and therefore no other line of questioning can possibly lead anywhere. Its pure dogma and betrays your anti science sentiments.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Darwinism isn't true science since it doesn't have evidence of species migrating to another species

So if I can show proof of a species changing enough that it can no longer breed with its original grandparents, or of a species developing a new organ, would that point towards evolution?

In other words, I can show one species, several intermediate sub-species, and another species. Such that adjacent sub-species can breed, but the start and end species cannot - would that qualify as evolution?

Or if I can show a population of organisms that have a common trait, and a new population arises that contains a distinct and unique beneficial feature, and that the feature relates to changes in the evironment only, would that qualify as evolution?

[Jim W N]

Your scenario is evolution within a species. I have no problem with that. But Darwinism is used to "prove" that all varieties of life were not created but somehow evolved. This requires species migrating from one to another. No proof exists of this because it's a hoax.

You can't explain how the eye or the ear or how DNA came into being, but any detailed study of these and other living matter and its components reveals design with purpose. That equals intelligence. Something those that deny what's in front of them seem to be without.

[Jim W N]

There’s no evidence of this kind of migration of species from on to another. Yet evidence of intelligent purpose in the design of living things and their components is everywhere.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

There’s no evidence of this kind of migration of species from on to another. Yet evidence of intelligent purpose in the design of living things and their components is everywhere.

But you will accept that if I can show evidence of that kind of migration - two species that cannot breed, but all the inter-species can breed with each other - then we have an example of evolution?

Regardless of whether or not you believe such evidence exists, are you willing to accept that bar for evidence for evolution?

[Electro]

Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith.

Here are merely 9 points out of thousands that are scientifically contrary to evolution. Why aren’t these points being taught in our public classrooms today?

1. What is meant by spontaneous generation and has it been proven to be true or false?

Spontaneous generation is the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously form into living matter (cell). It was scientifically proven false in the mid 1800’s and never been proven otherwise.

2. What was the goal of the Miller experiment?

The goal of the Miller experiment was to form (spontaneously generate) amino acids necessary for life.

3. Miller left oxygen out of his experiment. Why did he do this and what does the scientific evidence support?

Miller left oxygen out of his experiment because he knew oxygen causes molecular bonds to come apart, such as in amino acid bonds.

Furthermore, contrary to the no-oxygen setting of Miller’s experiment, the scientific evidence supports the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere.

4. Miller did get amino acids from his experiment. How did the amino acids he got compare to amino acids found in life?

Miller got a mix of 50% left-handed amino acids and 50% right-handed amino acids. Life requires 100% left-handed amino acids. This means the Miller experiment failed to produce the correct amino acids necessary for life.

5. What can be concluded about all attempts to build proteins necessary for life (biological proteins) from amino acids by natural processes?

Every attempt to produce amino acids by natural processes has ended up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Even when the experiment started with all left-handed amino acids, the amino acids naturally reverted back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.

6. Some textbooks and other evolutionary materials suggest that life started in the ocean. Is it possible for life to start in water?

Life cannot start in water. Water contains an oxygen molecule which will insert itself into amino acid bonds. The result is that if the amino acids did bond together, they would very soon be pulled apart.

7. Why do the following three things prohibit life from arising by natural processes (evolution).

a. Oxygen: Oxygen pulls molecule bonds apart. Amino acids necessary for life will not form or bond together in the presence of oxygen.
b. No oxygen: Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no ozone to protect molecules or any life.
c. Handedness of amino acids: All amino acids in proteins of life are left-handed. The natural tendency is always to a mix of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.

8. The probability of a biological protein being formed by natural processes, even given very generous assumptions, is 10 to the 191st power. The probability of a single cell being formed by natural processes is 10 to the 40,000th power. What about the argument: “Given enough time it will happen?”

Even given enough time (20 billion years), and very generous presuppositions, there is not enough time for even a single protein to form by random chance. Plus, mathematicians agree that any probability of 10 to the 50th power or greater means that it will not happen.

9. All living forms live, grow, and exist using very complex governing codes (DNA). What are the four necessary conditions for something to gain in information and complexity?

• An open system
• A source of energy
• A mechanism to capture and store the raw energy
• A mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use

Evolution offers neither a mechanism to capture and store the raw energy nor a mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use.

Conclusion: Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith. This fact and the scientific evidence contrary to evolution is being vehemently suppressed to further a blind faith of a religious dogma that cloaks itself as science.

[Coyoteman]

Based on evidence, your evolution is much more of a religious belief than ID. Talk about blind faith. There's no evidence of species migrating into another species and yet you hold it as "scientific". Darwinism is a hoax.

Actually there is such evidence, an overwhelming amount. Scientists all over the world can see it. Believers in a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity won't accept it though for purely religious reasons.

By the way, "Darwinism" is a derogatory term cooked up by creationists to include any science they don't agree with. It has no meaning in the sciences. I did six years of grad school, with half of it spent studying fossil man, evolution, osteology, human races, anatomy and the like and I don't think I ever once heard that term used. Here on FR it's used daily, much like the N..... word was used in the past -- and for much the same reasons.

ID on the other hand is a solid explanation for the origins of life, based on overwhelming evidence.

ID is a religious belief concerning the origins of life, wrapped up in a little scientific terminology in the hopes that it might fool a school board or state legislature somewhere. The modern iteration of ID came into being shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court excluded creation "science" from the schools in Edwards v. Aguilard. It first showed up in Of Pandas and Peoples along with that classic "cdesign proponentsists" word processing error. It has never come up with any of the necessary steps to be taken seriously as science, and is promoted largely by the Discovery Institute and their staff of lawyers and PR flacks.

And by the way, the theory of evolution does not include origins!

I can take to the water, Coyoteman, but I can't make you drink.

The water's fine; wine is even better. Just stay away from the Kool-Aid.

[Coyoteman]

Perhaps all of those details pertaining to origins are not taught as part of the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution does not include origins!

[MindBender26]

Leftists and Rightists are political descriptions, not descriptions of religious wackos of ANY religion who claim their beliefs are correct to the exclusion of all others.

[LeGrande]

Your scenario is evolution within a species. I have no problem with that.

That is the only kind of evolution that there is : ) Unlike what you ID'ers seem to think, a dog doesn't come from a chicken. That isn't what evolution is about.

Darwinism is used to "prove" that all varieties of life were not created but somehow evolved. This requires species migrating from one to another. No proof exists of this because it's a hoax.

That seems to be your primary problem, species do not migrate from one to another. If they did that would disprove the theory of evolution. "Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." Over time those changes become large and profound. You have stated already that you have no problem with that theory.

You can't explain how the eye or the ear or how DNA came into being,

Actually those are easy to explain and show. There is a very clear path showing the development of hearing and vision. DNA is simply a naturally occurring acid, and as such has not increased in complexity.

but any detailed study of these and other living matter and its components reveals design with purpose.

Ahh, the salient question is what is that purpose? Are you perfectly designed?

[Non-Sequitur]

Evidence of intelligent design is in you and around you.

That's what Darwin supporters say about evolution.

[Electro]

>Perhaps all of those details pertaining to origins are not taught as part of the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution does not include origins!<

That is not true. Evolution starts out with the Big Bang — a point of no life. Evolution very definitely assumes or outright affirms life coming form non-life. A totally unproven scenario; indeed, all the scientific evidence that is factual indicates it is absolutely impossible.

(Religious belief in evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

[Coyoteman]

That is not true. Evolution starts out with the Big Bang — a point of no life. Evolution very definitely assumes or outright affirms life coming form non-life. A totally unproven scenario; indeed, all the scientific evidence that is factual indicates it is absolutely impossible.

Don't presume to lecture me on evolution -- half of my areas/fields at the Ph.D. level were in evolution and fossil man. And you probably scanned a page or two at Answers In Genesis, then stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

And you are totally wrong in each and every sentence you wrote.

Why creationists presume to be able to define what the theory of evolution is, and what it contains, on the basis of their religious beliefs is the biggest farce of all.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That is not true. Evolution starts out with the Big Bang — a point of no life.

Can you tell me where you find that definition for evolution? Because in this post I linked and posted the definition of evolution from:

1. The dictionary
2. Wikipedia (a compendium of information, and it's typically left-leaning)
3. Talk Origins (a pro-evolution website)

And they all pretty much agree. And the concept of the Big Bang doesn't factor into ANY of those definitions.

So can you please show where you're getting that definition, because they need to be corrected.

(Religious belief in intelligent design does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)

Fixed that for you...

[valkyry1]

“Darwin stated his belief that differentiation can go on indefinitely until we have a brand new plant or animal, a new species with entirely different genetic structure, behavior, reproductive system, etc. Although he demonstrated no evidence for this, he presented his assumption as fact, which has been the same tactic practiced by evolutionists from his time ever on”

[Electro]

I know the reason you don’t want to admit that the evolution of life is part of evolutionary theory is because you can’t defend the origination of life from non-living matter. However, that’s what IS part of evolutionary dogma. Nonetheless, if you’re so smart, tell me: How did life come about? Did it evolve out of non-living molecules, or was it created by God?

[Coyoteman]

I know the reason you don’t want to admit that the evolution of life is part of evolutionary theory is because you can’t defend the origination of life from non-living matter. However, that’s what IS part of evolutionary dogma. Nonetheless, if you’re so smart, tell me: How did life come about? Did it evolve out of non-living molecules, or was it created by God?

Doesn't matter if it was one of these, or aliens. The theory of evolution works just fine in any case -- because the theory of evolution does not include origins no matter how many times creationists claim it does!