I was unable to do that because I can only read about 5 Washington Post articles a month. I don't want to pay them for unlimited access. This is a new month so I am now able to copy & paste the whole thing.
I also copied & pasted the comments which are mostly written by know-nothing bible-thumping anti-science creationists, aka American idiots. The moronic comments will help people understand why the United States is called "Idiot America".
Here it is, the whole thing including the idiotic comments:
An attack on evolution, disguised as a Darwin biography
By Jerry A. Coyne December 28, 2017
Jerry A. Coyne is professor emeritus in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “Speciation” (with H. Allen Orr), “Why Evolution Is True” and “Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.”
I’ve been an evolutionary biologist for nearly half a century and have read hundreds of books about Charles Darwin and his science. If we exclude books written by creationists — a group that A.N. Wilson doesn’t identify with — “Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker” is by far the worst. Appalling in its sloppy arguments and unrelenting and unwarranted negativity, its most infuriating flaw is its abysmal failure to get the most basic facts right. It’s a grossly inaccurate and partisan attack on both Darwin and evolution.
Given that many of Wilson’s earlier biographies have been admired for their style and insight, and not criticized for pervasive errors, this new project is baffling. Where Darwin’s other biographers have seen a sensitive and kindly man, a scrupulous scientist who willingly credited his predecessors, Wilson finds a greedy “self-mythologizer” desperate to become famous, even if it required ignoring or plagiarizing his forerunners and fellow naturalists. Because the documentary record is so rich — we have some 15,000 bits of correspondence to and from Darwin, and he was a meticulous note-taker and letter-keeper — and because Darwin and his ideas occupy such a prominent place in the history of science, a vast amount of scholarly energy has been devoted to understanding his life and influences. We truly know a huge amount about him. How is it, then, that Wilson can come up with a completely new take on his subject?
[Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ tops list of most important academic books]
There are two possibilities: All preceding Darwin scholarship is wrong, or, alternatively, the mistakes lie with Wilson. Parsimony alone would suggest that Wilson is the anomaly here, unless of course he has discovered some important new information. But there’s nothing remotely new in this book beyond Wilson’s anti-Darwin bias. That Wilson is the confused outlier among Darwin biographers is easily confirmed by even a cursory inspection of the book, which is replete with factual errors. This is not the place to describe all of Wilson’s misrepresentations, many of which are frankly daft. A few examples must suffice.
“Charles Darwin,” by A.N. Wilson (Harper)
Wilson says repeatedly that Darwin didn’t persuade his contemporaries of evolution’s truth, but in fact by Darwin’s death in 1882, virtually all scientists — and most educated people — accepted evolution (he was, after all, buried in Westminster Abbey). The rediscovery of Mendelian genetics in 1900 did not undercut evolution, as Wilson argues, but supported it, even correcting Darwin’s mistaken ideas about how inheritance worked.
Wilson also asserts that Darwin had low libido, which, in Wilson’s world, is apparently a character flaw. Yet he fathered 10 children. Wilson claims Darwin feigned illness to avoid commitments and visitors that would interrupt his work, yet Darwin complained incessantly that severe and lifelong gastric problems cost him weeks of productivity. We’re not sure what disease afflicted him: Cyclic vomiting syndrome or lactose intolerance are the latest hypotheses. But hypochondria is not credible.
In the most embarrassing error, Wilson claims that the first 50 pages of an important Darwin notebook have been lost forever, asserting that Darwin destroyed them to hide his intellectual cribbing from his contemporary Edward Blyth. In reality, Darwin simply placed those pages in a folder for later use, and they can easily be found online. Whatever Wilson was doing during the five years he spent researching and writing this book, it bears little relation to what we call “scholarship.”
Why the sustained animus against Darwin? I think Wilson’s issue is not really Darwin but his ideas. “Darwin was wrong,” is how he opens the book, referring to the theory of evolution. Wilson plainly dislikes evolutionary biology, but, lacking scientific credentials, is not in a position to provide a thorough scientific critique of the field. Instead, he seems to have written a biography — a task he is at least in principle qualified for, having written 20 books on history — as a platform to launch an assault on evolution. Darwin’s character is simply collateral damage.
So what does Wilson have against a body of science about which, it is clear, he knows next to nothing? Wilson has taken a somewhat tortuous (and public) spiritual path: Raised a Christian, he became an atheist and then returned to Christianity. Now writing as a believer, he seems reluctant to see humankind’s genesis and fate removed from divine hands. My evidence for this: Wilson’s reliance on discredited creationist cliches; his claims that human traits such as language, consciousness, altruism and even bipedality simply could not have evolved; and his avowal that his return to religion derived from writing about Wagner and Nazi Germany and seeing “how utterly incoherent were Hitler’s neo-Darwinian ravings ” in contrast to the views of anti-Nazi Christians.
In good creationist style, Wilson asserts that Darwin’s “gradualism” is wrong: that many changes in life’s history were neither slow nor adaptive. To support this, he argues that we find almost no transitional forms connecting major groups, suggesting that while evolution might occur within species (“microevolution,” such as the evolutionary acquisition of drug resistance in bacteria in response to antibiotics), it cannot create new forms (“macroevolution”). He’s wrong. Darwin’s gradualism was largely a pushback against claims that transitions happened instantaneously, such as the idea that a reptile could give birth to a mammal in a single generation.
And we now understand how sustained evolution over long periods of time results in the appearance of innovations (such as a fish fin becoming a tetrapod limb) that Wilson insists cannot evolve. The evidence against Wilson’s view is overwhelming. We have thousands of transitional fossils connecting major groups: fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals, small deer-like animals to whales, and of course ancient tree-dwelling apes to modern humans. Wilson’s claim is grossly misleading and, frankly, ridiculous.
Another familiar creationist claim lies at the core of Wilson’s problem with evolution: that Darwin promoted “social Darwinism,” the view that evolution tells us that “might makes right” in our own species, and that a struggle among races and classes picks out superior groups with the right to control others. In fact, Darwin was never a social Darwinist and certainly can’t be held responsible for others’ misuse (and abuse) of his ideas.
[Did Darwin’s theory of evolution encourage abolition of slavery?]
Wilson takes this to its logical extreme by proclaiming that Darwin’s views led to the Holocaust. He states that the Nazis’ race and eugenics laws were “all based on bogus Victorian science, much of which had started life in the gentle setting of Darwin’s study at Down House.” But as science historian Robert Richards showed decisively in his essay “Was Hitler a Darwinian?” (not cited by Wilson), Adolf Hitler and the Nazis explicitly rejected Darwinism and its materialistic underpinnings, basing their genocidal policies on anti-Semitism and ideas of racial superiority that existed long before Darwin. In fact, Darwin spurned the notion of interfering with the lives and reproduction of others, saying that “we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”
Wilson’s use of the familiar and discredited tropes of creationism — humans are too special to be products of evolution, complex organs such as eyes can’t evolve, we see microevolution but not macroevolution, evolution can’t create new information in DNA, evolution is itself a religion, Hitler’s genocide traces back to Darwinism and so on — forces us to conclude that, even if he isn’t a creationist, he surely walks and quacks like one.
In the end, Wilson’s book is harmful, because its ignorance and denial of scientific evidence, coming from an established author, will promote the mistaken view that evolutionary biology is seriously flawed. And by flouting the research on Darwin carried out by serious historians of science, it betrays those historians and history itself.
CHARLES DARWIN
Victorian Mythmaker
By A.N. Wilson
Harper. 438 pp. $32.50
45 Comments
theot581
12/28/2017 5:40 PM EST
The title of the book is completely correct, Victorian MYTHMAKER.
Because macro evolution is nothing more than a popular myth.
The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism.
When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a bacterium?
I have scoured the evolution resources for the evidences supporting macro evolution. They are:
Evidence 1: Extrapolation of micro evolution
Evidence 2: Homology = Comparative Anatomy
Evidence 3: Fossils and Geologic column
Evidence 4: DNA / Genetics / Junk DNA
Evidence 5: Anti-bacterial resistance
Evidence 6: Comparative embryology (Ernst Haeckel deception)
Evidence 7: Vestigial organs
Evidence 8: Biogeography
After careful examination I can state with confidence
that these evidences are significantly inadequate
to support the wild assertion that macro evolution is a scientific "fact"
badger83
12/28/2017 8:23 PM EST
So which universities offer degrees in creationism? Guessing none since there is zero science supporting it as opposed to evolutionary biology.
theot581
12/28/2017 8:57 PM EST
You are asking the wrong question.
Macro evolution is taught as a scientific fact to millions of trusting students - but does the scientific evidence support or condemn it?
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun) said :
“The bottom line
is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution]
is categorically false,
you can't create information with misspellings,
not even if you use natural selection.”
The scientific method requires a sceptical approach; but this is not applied to evolution. Evolution is propagated as dogma - this is bad science.
Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits” 03 February 2010
“Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.
The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered.
Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin's theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object.
The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
CAComments
12/29/2017 5:03 PM EST
By this logic one cannot have a scientific theory about anything that has already historically happened since it is not repeatable. Good luck with that.
IOnlyReplyToMorons
12/29/2017 8:42 AM EST
I've love to see your explanation for diversity of species. Hit me with it. Rock my world.
grrbear77
12/29/2017 12:59 PM EST
Yes, please submit your novel theories, backed by what must be extensive research, for peer reviewed publication. I'm sure the Nobel awaits you.
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 12:22 PM EST
I agree, except that the scientific revelations of what was formerly called "junk DNA" squarely support intelligent design and creationism and prove Darwinian "macro" evolution as impossible. Unless that was what you meant by including it in the list.
The Encode Project and "junk DNA" was ridiculed by Richard Dawkins and evolutionists, which actually held up real science for decades.
Because of evolutionist dogma (religion) Dawkins et al insisted that the 90% or so of DNA that they could not find any function for was just leftover "junk" of some evolutionary process. Because they dismissed it as due to "evolution," the real, essential functions that "junk" DNA performs were not discovered for a couple of decades.
Creationists insisted that there was a function for junk DNA, and that we just hadn't found it yet.
And the Creationists were right. Richard Dawkins and evolutionists were dead wrong.
This is what I mean about how evidence is INTERPRETED. All you can do is interpret evidence in favor of or against your view.
The ENCODE project is uncovering more and more about "junk" DNA every day. Our DNA is much more complex than scientists ever imagined (well, at least more than evolutionists imagined.) The project has even been able to identify some rare diseases, which is where the Encode project is expected to have much promise.
GaryHurdPhD
12/28/2017 8:24 PM EST
A.N. Wilson's book is pure drivel and bile. The reviews on the UK Amazon website are in concert with Jerry Coyne's. I was particularly taken with the commentary by historian of science John van Wyhe.
Dishonest misrepresentations of Darwin, and his research results are common. One author even more prolific than A.N. Wilson is the creationist fellow of the "Discovery Institute Richard Weikart, as an example see, “From Darwin to Hitler.” His goals is to deny biological science by attacking Charles Darwin. Another example of a still active anti-Darwin academic is Daniel Gasman. We called these sorts "fools with tenure." An even earlier example was Gertrude Himmelfarb who in 1958 argued that evolution must be denied because of Hitler.
As Prof. Coyne noted, these incompetent attacks fail on the truth.
theot581
12/28/2017 9:02 PM EST
I went through Darwin's book "On the Origins of Species" hoping to find solid evidence for macro evolution - all I found was tons of irrelevant details and no real evidence for macro evolution which can be defined as follows:
Simple beginning (e.g. 1 primitive cell like a bacterium.)
+ lots of time
+ lots natural selection
+ many mutations
+ natural forces (rain, wind, gravity etc.)
=============
extremely complex organism
(e.g. human, brain, blood circulatory system)
Has this been observed? - NO (Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this)
Is it plausible? -Not really ; There is no proof that it is.
Does it need a lot of faith to believe this? - Certainly does
Macro evolution is dying a slow and agonizing death cause by new discoveries in genetics which shows it to be totally implaysible. See book Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer for details.
So why do we teach it as a scientific fact?
IOnlyReplyToMorons
12/29/2017 8:37 AM EST
Sometimes you see a comment that is so bafflingly nonsensical that it's hard to respond to. It's like you've strung a bunch of words together that you think sound good but there isn't a single coherent thought to be had.
Bookbinder
12/29/2017 8:43 AM EST
See the review from Coyne's website
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/0...
B-Reasonable
12/29/2017 12:30 PM EST
We teach it as a scientific fact because the life's work of the overwhelming majority of some of the most brilliant scientific minds of the last 160 years have confirmed the "fact" of evolution. Even devout Christian scientists, such as Michael Behe and Francis Collins accept that evolution has occurred. The fact that a few other religious folks are in denial, and that you've fondly embraced the nonsense in some of their books, does nothing to change this.
“[T]he past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. [Emphasis supplied.] Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.” - - ”Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences (2008)
mikedddd
12/29/2017 4:22 PM EST
Yes, evolution has been observed. Try doing a Google search. One must be wilfully ignorant to miss the articles.
Here is just one:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi...
BTW, we haven't observed dinosaurs walking the Earth but we know they did.
Scruffycookie
12/29/2017 4:54 PM EST
Hey, is that you, A.N. Wilson?? It's clear you're British and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so it must be you.
Ken Phelps
12/29/2017 7:46 PM EST
"I went through Darwin's book "On the Origins of Species" hoping to find..."
Ah, therein lies the problem. Would you search the notes of the Wright brothers seeking to understand the aerodynamics of a modern aircraft? You do understand, I sincerely hope, that a bit of work has been done on the subject since then? Have you *actually* gone through a modern textbook - as opposed to the painfully recognizable, slightly glorified Chick Tracts from which you are borrowing your material? You seem to understand neither the astonishing volume of literature you are claiming to have "examined", or how wildly your conclusions diverge from those who, how you say, *wrote it*.
938Mev
12/30/2017 7:33 AM EST
Review of Signature in The Cell: "Author gets to a point in the study of biology in which some area of knowledge is not yet explained. Concludes Godidit. "
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 12:13 PM EST
So true. Why deny modern science? Yet evolutionists have to deny or ignore modern scientific discoveries to hang onto outdated beliefs. So sad.
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 7:18 PM EST [Edited]
Your post is full of lies. Evolution has never been proven, and can't ever be tested or proven. It has certainly never been 'observed,' the most ridiculous lie since you believe evolution occurred over "millions" or even "billions" of years.
The ONLY thing you can do with the HYPOTHESIS of evolution is to look at the existing evidence, and interpret your findings.
Actually, it's the only thing you can do with Creation, ID or evolution. Investigate the evidence. And the only difference between Creation, ID or evolution is in HOW you interpret the scientific evidence. Because they are ALL beliefs that can never be proven or falsified.
You are trying to pass evolution off as fact, even as recent scientific discoveries involving DNA and "junk" DNA have trashed Darwin's theories.
That isn't Darwin's fault, as DNA was not discovered yet, so he couldn't know that his hypothesis were not possible.
But what is your excuse for ignoring science?
Never, ever has there been an instance in all of nature of any life form "evolving" or doing anything other than going towards extinction.
All things, living or dead, degrade and erode over time. Even our DNA, as each new generation has about 100 more mutations than the generation before. We are DEvolving. This is scientific fact.
No life form has ever gained genetic material, nor has ever become more complex or intelligent. Humans have the advantage of written language and the sciences, which allow each new generation to build on the discoveries of previous generations. But this is not increased intelligence, but amassed intelligence. And no other life form can do this.
Evolution is no more a "fact" than Intelligent Design or Creationism. It's just a hypothesis that can never be proven or falsified. That is a big, bald faced lie that completely shreds any credibility you may have had.
It's fine to have that opinion, but don't lie and say your opinion is fact. It is not.
JSenec
12/29/2017 9:38 AM EST
An excellent review. Coyne has done an excellent job of rebuting most of the criticisms Wilson and others make. Recent biographies of Emma Darwin clearly refute the many attacks on Charles Darwin's character. They make clear that Darwin was a loving father who grieved profoundly the deaths of three of his ten children. One of Darwin's greatest sorrows in his life was the pain his evolutionary ideas caused his religiously devout wife. Darwin's health also limited his work. Medical care in Victorian England still included blood-letting and cold baths. Darwin's physical ills are still not completely identified, but to cure them he often went to spas where part of the treatment included taking baths at regular intervals in icy cold water. I don't believe that someone feigning illness would try to perpetuate the myth of one's illness by willingly submitting to such tortures.
Only the uninformed ideologue could doubt the overall correctness of the modern Darwinian synthesis. Our genus, Homo, has existed since about 3.3 million years ago, and recent discoveries of modern Homo sapiens dating to about 300,000 years ago, in Morocco, clearly indicate the differences between early Homo and ourselves and how they are best explained by Darwinian selection. Much recent research also indicates that LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of life on earth, was a species of bacteria that lived many millions of years ago, and that all living things today, including animals and plants, evolved from these single-cell organisms.
At the same time, one must admit that modern Darwinian theory is the best current paradigm in which to consider biological change over time and space. It's possible that a different and more powerful explanatory paradigm will appear, just as a better model might supplant Einstein's concepts. It's possible, but highly improbable.
Mark Sturtevant
12/29/2017 11:18 AM EST
An excellent summary. Just one quibble, which is probably a typo: LUCA would have existed several billion (not million) years ago.
JSenec
12/29/2017 4:07 PM EST
You are entirely correct. It was about 4 billion years ago.
theot581
12/30/2017 3:14 PM EST
What exactly is LUCA?
Is it a self replicating molecule?
Is it a simple cell?
Is it a bacterium?
How do we know it was 4 Billion years ago and not 2 or 1?
It seems like there is a whole lot of guessing going on here
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 12:12 PM EST
I can't agree. This review was juvenile, and nothing more than a character attack. I wish evolutionists would just stick to the science behind their interpretations. There seems to be very little science involved here at all.
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 7:05 PM EST [Edited]
I agree about Darwin's character. He was no more flawed than any of us. But he was wrong. He did the best he could with what information he had. He knew nothing of DNA, so he could not have known that his hypothesis were not possible.
But other than that, there is no proof whatsoever that the earth has been here for "millions of years." Or any life on earth being that old. Neither carbon dating nor radiometric dating have been found to be reliable, especially for long periods of time. So that is also an hypothesis. Not fact.
Nor has there ever been a "missing link" in human genealogy. Doesn't exist. It's fine to have an opinion or hypothesis, just don't try to promote it as fact. It is simply what you believe.
And Darwin's "molecules to man" hypothesis, or that we all came from a common ancestor, has definitely been dis-proven. This is not even possible with new knowledge of "junk DNA" and the ENCODE project.
There has never ever been any proof that we evolved from bacterium. Just common sense alone should tell you that "male" and "female" of a complex species could never have "evolved" from a simple, asexual bacterium. And certainly not without intelligent planning. What would cause a bacterium to split into male and female lines, and continue to develop at the exact same rate, during the exact same time span (millions of years?) into two different sexes that were somehow magically compatible and able to procreate? wow. Now that is fantastic science fiction.
Evolution is based on "junk" science and a lot of guesses and assumptions. It's the absolute worst paradigm to base anything scientific on, and it's just a shame that it's been promoted as fact when nothing could be further from the truth.
Darwin is as dead as his hypotheses. Time to move on and into the 21st century.
Mary_M_
12/29/2017 11:44 AM EST
Terrific explanantion of the flaws of this text. It's so important to have someone who understand the crank claims to fisk this kind of thing. That stuff is not always clear to folks who aren't immersed in the topic this way.
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 12:10 PM EST
I've been "immersed" for years, and haven't seen any truly scientific explanation for "evolution" that hasn't been disproven. Nothing in this article truly defends any "science" behind the belief of evolution either. It also misrepresents Intelligent Design (not necessarily creationism) as not being "scientific." Nothing could be further from the truth, which brings into question the honesty of this author. Not impressed by the article. Would rather concentrate on the actual science and how the evidence is interpreted. Which is all you can do with evolutionism or creationism.
Skeptical_me
12/29/2017 4:17 PM EST
As a former Christian who accepted Young Earth Creationism (Blindly, I might add), now an Atheist and learning Scientific Skepticism, (I'm not well versed in Evolutionary Theory). Why do the creationists always attack Maco-Evolution (As seen in this comment section)? And what books/video series could you recommend on the topic of Macro-Evolution and its supporting evidence? Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Andy David
12/29/2017 4:52 PM EST
"Why Evolution is True" (written by the author of this review) would be a great place to start.
Heather
12/29/2017 6:04 PM EST
I agree with Andy David above, 'Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne is probably the best book for the layman. It's well written, easy to read, and provides copious evidence,
Skeptical_me
12/29/2017 6:13 PM EST
Thank you so much, I shall buy it on Amazon now. Happy New Year!
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 12:06 PM EST
Hi Skeptical. It's difficult to pin evolutionists down on "micro" and "macro" evolution.
However, there is a major difference.
Micro evolution is "adaptation," which both evolutionists and creationists agree on. Micro evolution is change WITHIN a species, only involving already existing genes.
"Macro" evolution (as per Darwin as well) uses "mutations" to explain how change occurred above the species level. It involves fins turning into legs, wings into fingers, etc. New body parts.
Only problem is, Darwin knew nothing of DNA, as it had not been discovered yet. We now know that there are no beneficial mutations. They are almost entirely harmful, in some rare instances they are neutral. But never beneficial. Mutations are tracked by the cancers and diseases they cause, and actually lead to extinction. There are far too many gaps in the fossil record to support evolution, as no transitional species have been verified. Macro evolution, as per modern advances in DNA and the ENCODE project especially, has been proven impossible.
Hope this helps. Dr. Jason Lisle has a very interesting site on this very subject, if you care to look him up.
This is his blog: http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/04/20/research-at-i...
Answers in Genesis and ICR are both good sources of opposing evidence for creationism vs evolutionism. Always good to get both sides of the story.
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 4:15 PM EST
Why would you want information supporting "evolution" when even Richard Dawkins was proven wrong by modern scientific discoveries?
The ENCODE project and "junk DNA" is a world wide cooperative project that has been proving that (in spite of Richard Dawkin's claims) that this non coding DNA has essential functions, and even functions like a complex computer program, directing the processes of cells and even the formation of a new human being from conception. It's much more complex than scientists ever imagined. Fascinating stuff. Question everything.
For in truth, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and evolution all have the same thing in common.
They can never be proven or disproven.
All scientists can do is examine the evidence and interpret their findings.
The only difference between Creation, ID and evolution, is in HOW the evidence is interpreted.
Evolutionists like to say they have "PROOF!" but that is not possible in any way. It's a theory that is dying, and it's a waste trying to defend science that has been debunked. Just examine the pure evidence.
Ignor Amus
12/30/2017 1:43 AM EST
I don't understand why Prof Coyne would waste his time responding in such detail to the patent nonsense that Wilson produces. It really does not deserve the attention of a renowned scientist.
theot581
12/30/2017 3:11 PM EST
Completely disagree.
Coyne has taken the time for a detailed defence of evolution because it is a theory in crisis. Many biologists are having serious doubts about its scientific efficacy.
There is significant dissent from Darwinism. For proof of the dissent to go http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and download the list of brave scientists who are willing to publicly declare their dissent from Darwinian/Macro evolution. Micro Evolution is observable science, Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairy tale supported only by propaganda.
Paul Lemoine (director of the Paris Natural History Museum, president of the Geological Society of France and editor of Encyclopedie Francaise) said:
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate."
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it . . . Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people."
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 4:08 PM EST
I agree. Evolutionism is dying a slow death because evolutionists keep denying modern science.
The incredibly design of DNA for example. A tiny, microscopic zygote contains ALL the material AND instructions (programming code) for how to "grow" or "build" a complete, unique human being. The ENCODE project and Junk DNA are proving just how incredibly immense the amount of information in a zygote is, and even more astounding, that the former "junk" DNA actually has a purpose and among a number of essential functions, it also provides the "programming" essential to direct and control the growth of all the right material (organs and systems) at exactly the right time in order to "build" a unique and complete human being.
There is an immense amount of useful, intelligent information in our genome, that has a distinct purpose. This type of intelligent information and programming doesn't "evolve" from any dead, "natural" and consiousless forces. There is intelligent direction in all life, and in all procreation. Nothing dead produces anything living, let alone such a complex and purposeful life form. What would cause two separate sexes to "evolve?" Nothing. Not without some intelligent planning.
We have been teaching students lies. Convenient, politically correct, common core lies that only benefit the government controlling the information.
Life can only come from LIFE.
Everything that exists or ever existed, degrades over time.
Living or non-living, all things erode, degrade, die and/or become extinct.
Even human DNA has always degraded, as each generation has about 100 more mutations than the generation before. A very miniscule amount, but it's been happening for as long as we can determine. Eventually, this leads to extinction. And for sure, there are many thousands of creatures that have already become extinct, and many on the endangered species list.
Why do evolutionists cling so tightly to their dogma?
CapeDoc
12/30/2017 3:15 PM EST
For the best examination of the pseudo scientific claims of creationism google Kitzmiller v. Dover, the legal record of a trial. The school board wanted to replace the science text books with a creationist one. The complete trial transcript is on the web, including the vigorous cross examination of Prof. Behe, during which he admitted that in his rather expansive definition of science, astrology could be considered as a science. He is a professor of science at Lehigh U whose entire science department wrote a letter to the court repudiating his scientific nonsense. This trial is one of the rare occasions when the creationists showed up to present their case and face embarrassing questions they were unable to answer. Judge Jones, appointed by W. Bush, wrote a stinging dissent calling the school board members frauds and liars and declaring that creationism, while it can be taught in some classes, is not a science and cannot be taught in science classes. He received threats and for a while was guarded by the authorities. Note that the creationists refuse to accept this decision, but they have avoided any appearance where they are required to testify under oath, because they fear another debacle. They speak only before the gullible and never show up at the annual meetings of the scientific community. To be blunt, creationists are intellectual cowards.
theot581
12/30/2017 3:52 PM EST
You are misrepresenting the Dover trial big time.
You are also misrepresenting Intelligent design and equating to Creationism.
Intelligent Design is a completely scientific field which asserts that intelligent design is clearly discernible - and that it is clearly evidenced in the myriad of micro machines within the cell.
Macro evolution has NEVER been observed it is imply believed.
I had been hearing about the "mountains of evidence" proving Evolution for years; I thought it was rock solid science.
One day I started scrutinizing the so called "mountains of evidence" and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.
There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.
The deception starts with a vague and changing definition of evolution; if they do not define what the word means then the evidence they provide does not have to prove anything in particular. (see link for details http://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM). The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts). This is typical "bait and switch" advertising.
dpac61
12/31/2017 9:03 AM EST
I fail to understand why some religious zealots have a need to attack valid science in order to validate their beliefs. One can believe in God and still recognize the findings of scientific evidence. It takes a tremendous effort of willful ignorance to "believe" in so-called intelligent design, a theory based not on empirical evidence but, rather, an assumption.
Pantanal
12/31/2017 9:21 AM EST
So, in “one day” you “scrutinized” a “mountain of evidence” and came up with “cow dung” and came to the realization that “intelligent design is a completely scientific field”? Well, FYI, that’s what happens if you do your research up a cows butt. Next time, try looking in the library, the results will be different.
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 11:54 AM EST [Edited]
I have to agree. Macro evolution is a belief, an hypothesis, since it has never been observed, cannot be duplicated or tested, and is based only on an interpretation of evidence, just like Creationism.
Intelligent design is based on the same scientific evidence that "evolution" is, the only difference is in how the evidence is interpreted.
This is the dishonesty of evolutionists, who want to claim that all "real science" is on their side, and that Intelligent Design is based on "religious beliefs." These are lies.
Intelligent Design is not necessarily Creationism. They can be two very different things. Yet both are based on interpretation of scientific findings.
Take Albert Einstein, for example. He did not believe in the Christian personal, loving God. He was not a Christian. Yet he saw far too much order, precise mathematical balances and consistent laws of physics to be able to believe in evolution. He believed that a singular, supreme God designed and created the universe and everything in it, BECAUSE OF SCIENCE.
You can't call Einstein a "religious zealot," or "unscientific." Yet he believed in a singular, supreme Being whose power and knowledge were inconceivable to humans. He once compared the intelligence of God to a vast library, and humans as a child entering the library and seeing all the books and having some dim perception of the endless wealth of knowledge, but unable to even begin to comprehend it.
Even Einstein believed in a Creator who designed the universe because of the wealth of EVIDENCE for intelligent design.
Nor can you ignore all the famous Christian scientists who made the scientific revolution what it was. Newton, Boyle, Mendel, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Pasteur, Kelvin, etc. etc.
Christian scientists consider it an honor to God to discover the world he created. There is no conflict there, obviously.
Only evolutionists have a problem with someone being a scientist and a Christian. For no reason.
Pantanal
12/31/2017 9:29 AM EST
Today, apparently, “made up crap” is what passes for “fair and balanced”. Shame on Wilson for writing this nonsense and on Harper for publishing it.
tidelandermdva
12/31/2017 12:46 PM EST
It has become commonplace to discredit Darwin by claiming that Mendel showed that genetics worked differently from how Darwin expected, and that Steven J. Gould's punctuated evolution postulated that rather than Darwin's gradualism, species tended to persist until they changed relatively rapidly. But while they tinkered with some of Darwin's mechanisms, they totally validated Darwin's concepts of the origin of species through evolution from prior forms. It has to be acknowledged that Darwin's reliance on selective breeding of domesticated species within those species as a model for evolution between species invited skeptics of evolution to make the charge, repeated in the book reviewed here, that intraspecies change exists, but inter-species change does not.
dennis vadnais
12/31/2017 2:14 PM EST
It’s a miracle that my legs are just the right length to reach the ground
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 4:17 PM EST
Why does that remind me of Abe Lincoln? : - )
Kelly Nealis
12/31/2017 4:20 PM EST
There is no proof that we originated from prior forms. This is an hypothesis, and one that is being disproven by ENCODE and modern DNA discoveries.
Molecules to man? Not even possible.
Everything in nature, dead or alive, degrades and/or erodes over time. Nothing in nature has ever become "better" or gained genes or functions or "improved" in any way. This is fantasy, and goes completely against all science we know is factual today.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.