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]

The origin of life isn’t part of evolution; it’s a non-issue in the debate about the theory of evolution.

So why don’t you tell me what leads you to believe that evolution defines the origin of life? What reference do you have?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Oh, and if you really want to know how life arose, see my post 79. It's incontravertible proof, and must be accepted as fact, as the evidence is everywhere and in open view.

You have a different solution to the way life arose? Tell me why yours is better than mine?

[Electro]

Can’t answer it, can you?

Furthermore, evolution doesn’t work from the point of the supposed Big Bang or any point thereafter!

[valkyry1]

Great article here on Darwin, his beliefs, and evolutionists.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number4/Darwinpapers4.Html

[PugetSoundSoldier]

You still haven’t answered where you saw a definition of evolution that includes the Big Bang.

Rocks and glass houses and all...

[Coyoteman]

Furthermore, evolution doesn’t work from the point of the supposed Big Bang or any point thereafter!

The theory of evolution works just fine for describing and explaining the change in the genomes and speciation since the earliest life. That is what it is intended to do.

To claim otherwise, as you do with your baseless assertion that evolution includes the Big Bang and everything since, is incorrect and, frankly, dishonest. Most of us arguing the evolution side know that what you are claiming is incorrect, but for those who don't know any better your assertions amount to a falsehood.

[Fichori]

"Enjoy your hike!" [excerpt]

I did indeed!
Your welcome to enjoy it also:

Really neat tree.

Another neat tree

What we went to see

On the way out, the dog needed a lift over the stinging nettles.

Tree that got clawed by a bear a couple hours before the picture was taken

Oh yeah, lots of bear piles.

(Just in case anyone was wondering, yes, bears do go in the woods)

[Electro]

Well, here are simply 14 points out of thousands that reveal the idea of evolutionary transitions is just that: an idea.

1. What was one of the major objections Charles Darwin stated in his book, Origin of the Species, about his idea of evolution?

One of Charles Darwin’s objections (concerns) to his theory was that the fossil intermediates necessary to support evolution did not exist or could not be found.

2. What does most of the information in the public education system (textbooks) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) state about the fossil record?

Most information in the public education system (textbooks) and the National Academy of Sciences state there are many intermediate (fossil transitional forms) available to support evolution. BUT, in fact there are no provable transition fossils.

3. What is significant about the different types of organisms scientists find in the Precambrian and Cambrian time periods?

In the Precambrian time period we find single-cell organisms. In the Cambrian time period we find very complex creatures such as trilobites, jellyfish, and sea shells.

4. Based on the Darwinian model of evolution what should we find between the Precambrian and Cambrian time periods? What have scientists actually found?

According to Darwinian evolution scientists should find single-celled organisms in the Precambrian with a gradual progression of complexity to very complex organisms in the Cambrian time period. Scientists have not been able to find any gradual progression (transitional forms) as they move from the Precambrian to the Cambrian time periods.

5. Many evolutionists claimed that the Coelacanth was an intermediate link between fish and amphibians. How accurate was this claim?

The claim by many evolutionists of the Coelacanth becoming an amphibian (front fins turning into legs) was not accurate. In 1938 a living Coelacanth was found and the front fins were still fins. The Coelacanth was not evolving, but is still 100 percent fish.

6. Many textbooks still document the horse as proof of evolution. Do all scientists agree? What information are textbooks not including?

Many scientists do not agree with the alleged evolution of the horse series. Even textbooks are confusing on the issue. Some textbooks claim there are many transitional creatures in the horse series while some textbooks suggest there is not a clear line of progression.
Also, the different horse fossils are often found mixed together in the same strata, suggesting they lived at the same time. In addition, textbooks fail to mention there are small, medium and large sized horses living today. Textbooks also fail to mention that the rib count, vertebrae count, tooth count do not go in a sequential order suggested by evolution.

7. Evolutionists claim that reptiles (dinosaurs) evolved into birds. What is their main fossil evidence for this claim and what evidence is used to support that it was a transitional form?

The main evidence used by evolutionists to support dinosaur to bird evolution is the Archaeopteryx fossil. Two of the main evidences used to support Archaeopteryx as a transitional form are that it had teeth and claws on its wings.

8. What evidence refutes Archaeopteryx as a transitional form?

Some birds living today have claws on their wings. Other fossil birds that are not claimed to be transitional had teeth. Birds “older” than Archaeopteryx have been discovered. Birds are so different than reptiles that there should be thousands of transitional forms (intermediates) if reptiles evolved into birds, not just a single alleged transition. Finally, why should evolutionists resort to misinformation (false claims: “feathered dinosaurs”) to support their claim of reptile to bird evolution if they are sure of their evidence?

9. What is the difference between macroevolution, microevolution, and genetic variation?

Microevolution is often associated with two different meanings. A common meaning is variation within kind. A second meaning is random mutations or errors in DNA. In both cases there is no evolution taking place. In addition no new information is added.

Macroevolution is when one species changes into a new species. This requires the addition of new genetic information.

Genetic variation means variability within kind. This is a case of using existing genetic information to vary within kind. All species have the capability to be “different” within kind, but not change into a new species.

10. Can natural selection be the cause of one kind of species to “evolve” into a completely new kind of species?

No, because macroevolution requires the addition of new information and natural selection only works with existing information. In addition, in many cases natural selection causes a loss of information, the opposite direction of evolution.

11. Most mutations are detrimental or neutral. Some mutations may be beneficial. Based on this information can mutations cause evolution to occur?

Detrimental mutations are the cause of disease, sickness, and death, therefore these are not a cause of evolution. Neutral mutations cause no change and are therefore not a cause of evolution. Some mutations may be beneficial but they cannot be the cause of evolution. To have evolution occur new genetic information must be added. There are no known beneficial mutations that have added new information.

12. Is bacteria resistance to antibiotics an example of evolution occurring today?

Bacteria resistance to antibiotics is not an example of evolution. Most antibiotics work at the enzyme level (protein) and therefore there is no new information added.
A second cause of resistance is that some bacteria already have the resistance and some don’t. The bacteria that do not have the resistance die out and again there is no change.
A third cause is that in some cases a dormant gene is activated due to an environmental factor. This is called a programmed gene expression. Since the activated gene for resistance was already present (but dormant) no new information was added.

13. Why is it not possible for one creature to evolve into a new creature, such as a reptile evolving into a bird?

There is no known mechanism that would allow for one creature to evolve into another creature. A major consideration would be that as the creature is evolving, the external features must change as well as many of the internal organs. In addition, as a creature is half evolved, reptile to bird, it can no longer do its previous functions, such as escape its predators, but it cannot yet do its new functions. At this point it will perish.

14. What is the best evidence/event for understanding the fossil record?
The best evidence for understanding the fossil record is the Genesis Flood.

Just the facts.

[Fichori]

Nice post!

[valkyry1]

Maybe you got a PHD in a certain field, but at its core it is based on assumptions and beliefs. Yep, those are ‘in science’ too.

The hard truth, the evolutionist is not doing science but his religion.

“In 1872 Darwin was refused membership in the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute for which they gave the following reason:

” . . .the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man, is not science but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypothesis, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.” (From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol.111, pp.224, note.)”

[Coyoteman]

Just the facts.

Oft-refuted fundie nonsense.

All nicely refuted in the Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak.

(You do realize, don't you, that the story of the global flood is a myth?)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Even Darwin couldn’t reconcile the reality of intelligent design.

Darwin denied design and teleology in nature. He denied final causes and ends, which amounts to denying purpose and intention in creation. He was quite proud of this achievement. This was the point of choosing natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. Darwinians after Darwin also deny teleology in nature. As Kellogg said, Darwinism is a non-teleological causal-mechanical theory of nature. I recall a rather sad moment in George Romanes's Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution where, after putting forth the evidence, he cries out, 'the theist must now despair', 'where is thy God?'. Darwinians are very explicit about all this, but for whatever reason some people just don't get the message.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Please point to ONE item you consider incontrivertible proof in Nature (not made by man) that would establish Intelligent Design

The fact that nature is intelligible.

If it is everywhere, it must be simple for you to type out just a single word.

The Hand, Sir Charles Bell.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The Genesis Flood is a myth; the world was created by Brahma at the command of Vishnu. It’s incontravertible and the evidence is plainly at hand all around us.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Thank you for providing proof for evolution. You’ve shown that evolutionary pressures will cause organisms to adapt to their surroundings, and grow suitable features for their own roles.

[valkyry1]

I have read talk-origins, and anything out of talk-origins is hardly a refutation.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

No fair for non-evolutionists to create the definition of evolution!

This is not from a Wikipedia college boy but from Darwin Medalist Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the modern synthesis:

"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry."

"Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from animal, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future."

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

half of my areas/fields at the Ph.D. level were in evolution

So, then, you have half a degree in evolution?

[Fichori]

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!

Classic bait-n-switch.

The General Theory of Evolution (GTE) covers:

• Big Bang: All matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity, which experienced a rapid inflation of matter that eventually evolved into stars, galaxies, and planets.
• Abiogenesis: That life on Earth arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals into an as-yet-undescribed self-replicating protocell;
• Common descent: That all organisms on Earth are related to each other, and descended from a single spontaneously-formed protocell;
• Cosmic chronology: That the universe, Earth, and life on Earth are old to the order of millions and billions of years;

[Fichori]

"DNA is simply a naturally occurring acid, and as such has not increased in complexity." [excerpt]

DNA is like computer code.
(The sequences are far from simple)

Its not simply a 'naturally occurring acid'.

I suggest you do further research on this subject before asserting this type of thing without sources to back up your claims.