I still don’t see the problem.
Science was not where it should have been in the Dark Ages either.
Well, you’re a newcomer to the discussions so you don’t realize what has been claimed by the die-hard Darwinists here for a long, long time.
I have heard some of the most ridiculous claims about evolutionary theory.
The statement I repeat is that Darwinian theory is “more certain than gravity”.
Then take a look at one of the world’s leading evolutionists, Stuart Newman, admits:
that big idea is coming up against a lot of entrenched belief within the scientific community that things happen in the Darwinian fashion
The Darwinian old-guard is “entrenched” – claiming that their failed ideas are “more certain than gravity”. Teaching their theory as if it is sound. I’ve heard some claim “there are no flaws in evolutionary theory”.
Now you naively say you “don’t see the problem”.
Well, you haven’t recognized the claims that evolutionists have made. To simply say that the dismissal of Darwinian theory is no problem for science is absurd. Think about the claims made in the name of Darwin. Think about the 100,000 scientists that StAnastasia talks about who still are “entrenched” in a stupid theory.
Buffalo asked some very good questions also. Will the evolutionary enterprise admit that he has been right to criticize and reject Darwinian claims of gradual modification by natural selection and mutations?
Then look at this:
Suzan Mazur: Your theory of form also describes an evolutionary spontaneity. **You say that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion **half a billion years ago using a pattern language – dynamical patterning modules (DPMs) – and that selection followed as a “stabilizer”. Is that correct?
Stuart Newman: Yes.
Incredible. Let’s hear it for those fossil hunters claiming that “someday” they’ll find the fossils of Cambrian ancestors. According to Stuart Newman, those fossils don’t exist because
there were no ancestors – there were no transitionals.
His idea? The Cambrian animals “physically self-organized”. Hey, why not? They simply responded to the new evolutionary law of “sometimes things just create themselves”. That’s even better than Darwinism because its even more impossible to falsify.
To my mind, self-organization does represent a challenge to the Darwinian, i.e., the modern synthesis and the perceived understanding of evolutionary theory. Some people are concerned – though I don’t agree with them for being concerned about it – but people are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they’re going to allow the creationists to slip through the door as well.
Yes, that is a frightening prospect. By eliminating the Darwinian mechanism, the extended evolutionary synthesis removes any semblance of explanatory power of the theory also. Things just popped into existence – because that’s what they do. Again, why not? It’s not an explanation but an assertion.
Most importantly, to dismiss Darwinism in such a decisive manner makes it abundantly clear that Darwinian claims were made without factual evidence. They were speculations which can be changed, modified, refuted, reversed and dismissed at any time. It affects nothing. No “facts” are overturned. The same lack of facts creates the self-organization speculation as it does for Darwinian mechanisms.
The people you refer to – instead of moving beyond and expanding Darwin’s ideas to include things like self-organization and bringing other mechanisms into it – **adhere to this Darwinian orthodoxy **where everything has to be incremental. And when confronted with something very complex like the bacterial flagellum or the segmented vetebral column, they say that it had to have arisen in an incremental fashion.
But there are other mechanisms involving self-assembly and involving self-organization that could potentially explain these things as long as one did not seek purely incremental explanations. And physics and the theories of self-organization show us that those mechanisms exist. I think it’s an unfortunate error that some advocates of evolution are making by adhering so closely to
this incrementalist Darwinian dogma.
Interesting words. Where have we heard Darwinism called an “orthodoxy” or a “dogma” before? Where have we heard the screams of horror when anyone pointed out that evolutionists adhered to their failed theory as if it was religious dogma?
Oh yeah – right here on CAF. Like, all the time.
Don’t worry, this interview is over a year old and we haven’t seen the Darwinian circus cancel a show yet. Their main clown is in the spotlight now, touting his “Greatest Show on Earth”.
Apparently, nothing can embarrass these types at all. Shortly after asserting that their theory is the greatest thing in the history of science, the theory is unravelled by one of their own (Newman is far from the only evolutionist who has problems with the theory) – and we’ll hear, “It’s no problem. Science always revises its views.”
“Ok, we were a bit mistaken before – but trust us now. We’ve REALLY got the explanation for life and the origin of human beings now – 100% certain. We promise!”
