Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
This is snip it I found in one of my Word files. I tried looking for the source but was unsuccessful. If you are gonna make a big fuss of the source then perhaps you shouldn't post. For those interested, do you think evolution is an affective club for beating religion? If so why?
Evolution by Jerks
Since the synthetic theory originally arose in response to the collapse of classical Darwinism, where does that leave us today? "Punctuated equilibrium," would be the reply of the average biology teacher or science columnist. This is the famous hypothesis which Gould and Niles Eldredge came up with in the early 70s, when they and other paleontologists began to insist that the gaps in the fossil record be taken seriously. According to this theory, small groups of animals break off from the herd, go off to peripheral locations "at the edge of ecological tolerance," and mutate rapidly into "hopeful monsters" who then replace the old herd. Because the changes occur so quickly, there is no fossil evidence. We were once told that evolution is so slow we can't see it; now we're told that it's too fast to see. Gould and Eldredge admit that there is no direct evidence that evolution occurred in this way. And plenty of scientists don't buy "evolution by jerks," pointing out, among other problems, that it lacks a mechanism. How, for example, did the bat suddenly find itself with a workable sonar? True or not, punctuated equilibrium is really a refutation of Darwin, who said that his theory would break down completely "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight variations."
Besides the "punk eek" crowd, there are two other evolutionary camps today. There is the mainstream, which clings to old-fashioned Darwinism because there is no better explanation for the origin of species. For these scientists the engine of species creation is small DNA copying errors, which presumably add up over millions of years to "evolution." These retro-Darwinists explain away the gaps in the fossils and do not seriously address the question of how smooth intermediates between land mammals and whales, or reptiles and birds, could ever have existed.
Then there are scientists who reject Darwin. In fact, opposition to Darwin's theory is more widespread than is generally supposed. It is rejected by most French biologists, for example, including the late Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, president of the French Academy of Sciences, who called Darwinism "a pseudo-science" that is "either in conflict with reality or cannot solve the basic problems." A group of prominent anti-Darwinists produced a technical volume called Beyond Neo-Darwinism in 1984, in which two American biologists, Gareth Nelson and Ron Platnick, wrote, "We believe that Darwinism . . . is, in short, a theory that has been put to the test and found false." Molecular biologist Michael Denton weighed in with Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in 1986, in which he showed that recent developments in molecular biology are at complete variance with Darwinism. And this past year, Behe's Darwin's Black Box has caused a stir by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is biochemically impossible.
Scientists and philosophers who disagree with Darwin who deny that small mutations guided by natural selection can add up to "macro" changes still call themselves "evolutionists" since they recognize that all life forms share basic genetic material and so may be descended from a single ancestor; but they are frank about not being able to explain how this happened. Some speculate that species undergo a "genetic snap" which produces new ones. This would mean that evolution was somehow "pre-programmed" in the DNA. This scenario sounds a lot like St. Augustine's and is, of course, anathema to Darwinists because it points to a Programmer God.
Why, in the face of so much negative evidence, does Darwin's theory maintain its hold over scientists and educators? Mainly because it is an effective club with which to beat religion. Richard Dawkins, Darwin's modern attack dog, is typical when he calls religion a "virus" that "infects people's minds, replicates and spreads." He criticizes scientists who profess a belief in God and points out that the great merit of Darwinism is that it allows one to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Behe nicely dissects Dawkins's "proofs" of Darwin's theory, showing how he makes use of hidden postulates and unwarranted assumptions.
Evolution by Jerks
Since the synthetic theory originally arose in response to the collapse of classical Darwinism, where does that leave us today? "Punctuated equilibrium," would be the reply of the average biology teacher or science columnist. This is the famous hypothesis which Gould and Niles Eldredge came up with in the early 70s, when they and other paleontologists began to insist that the gaps in the fossil record be taken seriously. According to this theory, small groups of animals break off from the herd, go off to peripheral locations "at the edge of ecological tolerance," and mutate rapidly into "hopeful monsters" who then replace the old herd. Because the changes occur so quickly, there is no fossil evidence. We were once told that evolution is so slow we can't see it; now we're told that it's too fast to see. Gould and Eldredge admit that there is no direct evidence that evolution occurred in this way. And plenty of scientists don't buy "evolution by jerks," pointing out, among other problems, that it lacks a mechanism. How, for example, did the bat suddenly find itself with a workable sonar? True or not, punctuated equilibrium is really a refutation of Darwin, who said that his theory would break down completely "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight variations."
Besides the "punk eek" crowd, there are two other evolutionary camps today. There is the mainstream, which clings to old-fashioned Darwinism because there is no better explanation for the origin of species. For these scientists the engine of species creation is small DNA copying errors, which presumably add up over millions of years to "evolution." These retro-Darwinists explain away the gaps in the fossils and do not seriously address the question of how smooth intermediates between land mammals and whales, or reptiles and birds, could ever have existed.
Then there are scientists who reject Darwin. In fact, opposition to Darwin's theory is more widespread than is generally supposed. It is rejected by most French biologists, for example, including the late Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, president of the French Academy of Sciences, who called Darwinism "a pseudo-science" that is "either in conflict with reality or cannot solve the basic problems." A group of prominent anti-Darwinists produced a technical volume called Beyond Neo-Darwinism in 1984, in which two American biologists, Gareth Nelson and Ron Platnick, wrote, "We believe that Darwinism . . . is, in short, a theory that has been put to the test and found false." Molecular biologist Michael Denton weighed in with Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in 1986, in which he showed that recent developments in molecular biology are at complete variance with Darwinism. And this past year, Behe's Darwin's Black Box has caused a stir by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is biochemically impossible.
Scientists and philosophers who disagree with Darwin who deny that small mutations guided by natural selection can add up to "macro" changes still call themselves "evolutionists" since they recognize that all life forms share basic genetic material and so may be descended from a single ancestor; but they are frank about not being able to explain how this happened. Some speculate that species undergo a "genetic snap" which produces new ones. This would mean that evolution was somehow "pre-programmed" in the DNA. This scenario sounds a lot like St. Augustine's and is, of course, anathema to Darwinists because it points to a Programmer God.
Why, in the face of so much negative evidence, does Darwin's theory maintain its hold over scientists and educators? Mainly because it is an effective club with which to beat religion. Richard Dawkins, Darwin's modern attack dog, is typical when he calls religion a "virus" that "infects people's minds, replicates and spreads." He criticizes scientists who profess a belief in God and points out that the great merit of Darwinism is that it allows one to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Behe nicely dissects Dawkins's "proofs" of Darwin's theory, showing how he makes use of hidden postulates and unwarranted assumptions.
