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.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Thank you for providing proof for evolution.

You're welcome. The next time some skeptic asks you for proof of evolution, you are welcome to cite: "The fact that nature is intelligible. The Hand, Sir Charles Bell" and watch him succumb to the withering blast of evolutionary reasoning.

[Fichori]

"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."

Equating micro-evolution which has been observed to macro-evolution which has NOT been observed is simply a cheap slight of hand.

[Jim W N]

Ahh, the salient question is what is that purpose?

The primary issue is that there is evident design and evident intelligence in the design. What the purpose is, is a different question and depends on what specifically you're looking at and how the purpose might be interpreted.

Are you perfectly designed?

The issue again is evident design with evident intelligence behind the design. Perfection or lack thereof is a different issue.

[Fichori]

I browsed the links and they were full of strawmen and fallacies. Claiming a methodology is atheistic is nonsense!

Since atomic fission was unknown to the Apostles, then clearly fission is of the Devil, and nuclear power and research as a result are satanic.

Likewise, radio was used by Nazis to propogandize and incite their followers. Thus any means of conveying information via radio must be evil as well.

No, it is the application of the methodology that determines its merit. Not the methodology itself. [excerpt]

Duuuude, you just dissed Coyoteman!
(That first link was to one of his posts!)

BTW, a big fancy claim that is unsupported by facts is known as elephant hurling.


So first we get the flying elephant, then we get several strawmen.

Nice circus!

[Jim W N]

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?

No such evidence exists to my knowledge. Even if you were able to scrape up even one such piece of evidence, I think it would be hard to hold a global theory based on it. Science should be about probability and preponderance of evidence via the scientific method, not conjecture based on a possible scrawny single piece of evidence.

Compare that to the innumerable pieces of evidence of design in living things that show clear evidence of intent and purpose pointing to intelligence behind the design. ID is robust, whereas Darwinism is paltry. There's no comparison.

[Jim W N]

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

Hmmm, that's curious since your Bible is titled The Origin of the Species, and your fellow disciples use it to try to explain how life began.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

You're welcome. The next time some skeptic asks you for proof of evolution, you are welcome to cite: "The fact that nature is intelligible. The Hand, Sir Charles Bell" and watch him succumb to the withering blast of evolutionary reasoning.

Well, if it's good enough for ID, it should be good enough for evolution, right?

[Jim W N]

Evidence of intelligent design is in you and around you.

That's what Darwin supporters say about evolution.

There's no equivalence here. ID has innumerable pieces of evidence while Darwinists have not one shred of evidence of species migrating to another species.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No such evidence exists to my knowledge. Even if you were able to scrape up even one such piece of evidence, I think it would be hard to hold a global theory based on it. Science should be about probability and preponderance of evidence via the scientific method, not conjecture based on a possible scrawny single piece of evidence.

OK, look at the Larus genus - the seagull. They are considered a ring species. Species that live close to each other can breed, but the further apart they live the less likely they can breed, to the point where a few species simply cannot inter-breed at all.

Remember, in science a single negative will destroy a theory. We have here a single negative for ID. Something that pokes a BIG hole in ID, and supports evolution at the same time.

And you still have not presented any evidence for ID that could not also apply to evolution. Unlike the evidence of the Larus genus of gulls.

[Coyoteman]

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;

You forgot to provide the source for your talking points. They are from CreationWiki, a fundamentalist/creationist website. They are not exactly a paragon of scientific accuracy and reliability.

Tell you what: you define your religious beliefs, and let scientists who know something about the subject define what the theory of evolution covers.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

not one shred of evidence of species migrating to another species

Please see the bacteria referenced earlier in this thread. Evolved a new stomach, that one did. Specifically to metabolize man-made chemicals.

If that does not qualify as evolution then you REALLY need to explain just what you consider evolution!

[Fichori]

"You forgot to provide the source for your talking points. They are from CreationWiki," [excerpt]

First you say that I forgot to provide a source, and then you turn around and say my sources are from a site that you, as an Evolutionist, detests.

Make up your mind already!

[Coyoteman]

ID has innumerable pieces of evidence while Darwinists have not one shred of evidence of species migrating to another species.

You are wrong (as usual).

Fossil Horses FAQs (more information than you'll ever read)

[Jim W N]

Darwin denied design and teleology in nature.

Au contraire, my friend. Not that we need some man's approval to accept common sense, but Darwin most certainly struggled with ID up until his death.

From Charles Darwin & Intelligent Design Denis O. Lamoureux St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta (Accepted March 2003 in Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies):

...during the last year of his life in a conversation with the Duke of Argyll who recalls: I said to Dr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the ‘Fertilization of Orchids’ and upon ‘The Earthworms,’ and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature–I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away” (F. Darwin 1888, I:316).

[valkyry1]

Yes, and from a fellow who very often uses talk-origins as a source. Go figure.

[Fichori]

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

Hmmm, that's curious since your Bible is titled The Origin of the Species, and your fellow disciples use it to try to explain how life began.

LOL!

[Jim W N]

I've done this before, earlier in this thread, but I'll do it again, Ethan, although you need not look much further than the mirror to be confronted with the reality of design with a purpose:

As I have said, giving examples (of intelligent design pointing to an intelligent designer/creator) feels like pointing out trees in a forest, but here's a couple that I've given before:

- DNA - a miraculous and incredible amount of intelligent information and code in an infinitesimally small building-block of life.

- Your ear - The inner ear has three multi-directional nerve/sensors elegantly designed to help you keep your balance. They're called semicircular canals - three loops of fluid-filled tubes that are attached to the cochlea in the inner ear. They help us maintain our sense of balance. Each of these loops goes in a different direction, so that all three together helps maintain one's equilibrium no matter what angle your body is in.

- Any detailed study of a leaf or your eye or anything in your body or any living thing.

More evidence than the sand of the sea.

[Fichori]

Evolution and its proponents are fast becoming a three ring circus with a sidesplitting comedy headliner.

[Jim W N]

LOL!

An expected answer from those who have no answer for the undeniably of evident design and evident intelligence in living things. Valid inquiry is acceptable in discussing these matters, but cynicism and contempt are not valid refutations to ID.

[YHAOS]

”The theory of evolution works just fine in any case”

I always thought so. At least according to everything related by the wisemen of science who do now, or did previously, inhabit this forum.

” -- because the theory of evolution does not include origins no matter how many times creationists claim it does!”

I wasn’t aware that the UC Berkeley campus was infested with Creationists (Marxists/Socialists, yes, but not Creationists). It must be the case however, if we are to believe the Berkeley website “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under their general heading “evolution 101” and further billed as “your one-stop source for information on evolution.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

It’s not uncommon for people to sculpt their tale to fit their audience. Nor is it uncommon that the tale may differ markedly from one venue to another. But it’s a rather disappointing tactic to see practiced by people who tout their invincible integrity and steadfast dedication only to the facts as they are presently best known.

You need to inform the good folks at Berkeley of their profound error in linking the origin of life to the TOE. You might also suggest that they notify the other universities who list the Berkeley website as a reference on their own evolution websites. Otherwise there must be rather a large number of people who have concluded that, despite what they say contrarily, many scientists and other academics are actually convinced that speculation on the origin of life is inevitably infused and informed by the Theory of Evolution.

This may be the reason why you have so much trouble convincing Creationists that the TOE does not include the origins of life. It may be that many Creationists are inclined to believe all these University websites rather than your assurances to the contrary.