Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Evolutionists Admit Their Field's Failures

  1. #1

    Evolutionists Admit Their Field's Failures


    Donate Darwinism for a Tax Credit? Evolutionists Admit Their Field's Failures
    July 1, 2022, 6:45 AM
    Donate Darwinism for a Tax Credit? | Evolution News


    An article in The Guardian by science journalist Stephen Buryani represents something remarkable in the way the public processes the failures of evolutionary theory.

    In the past, those failures have been admitted by some biologists...but always in settings (technical journals, conferences) where they thought nobody outside their professional circles was listening. It's like if a married couple were going through rough times in their relationship. They'd discuss it between themselves, with close friends, maybe with a counselor. But for goodness sake they wouldn't put it on Facebook, where all marriages are blessed exclusively with good cheer and good fortune.


    Scandalous Admissions

    Well, the field of evolutionary biology has just done the equivalent of a massive Facebook dump, admitting that Jim and Sandy, who always seemed so happy, are in fact perilously perched on the rocks. In a very long article, top names in the field share with Buryani what intelligent design proponents already knew, but few Guardian readers guessed. The headline from the left-leaning British daily asks, "Do we need a new theory of evolution?" Answer in one word: yes.


    The article is full of scandalous admissions:

    Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection....

    This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading.

    For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn't just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. "The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology," says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. "And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat."

    There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact — and whether other forces might also be at work — has become the subject of bitter dispute. "If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now," the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner told me, "we must find new ways of explaining."...

    [T]his is a battle of ideas over the fate of one of the grand theories that shaped the modern age. But it is also a struggle for professional recognition and status, about who gets to decide what is core and what is peripheral to the discipline. "The issue at stake," says Arlin Stoltzfus, an evolutionary theorist at the IBBR research institute in Maryland, "is who is going to write the grand narrative of biology." And underneath all this lurks another, deeper question: whether the idea of a grand story of biology is a fairytale we need to finally give up. [Emphasis added.]


    "Absurdly crude and misleading"? A "classic idea" that "has so far fallen flat"? "A fairytale we need to finally give up"?

    Scientists locked in a desperate struggle for "professional recognition and status"? What about for the truth? This is how writers for Evolution News have characterized the troubles with Darwinian theory. But I didn't expect to see it in The Guardian.


    A Familiar Narrative

    Buryani runs through a familiar narrative: the modern synthesis, the challenge from the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the 2016 "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" meeting at the Royal Society (which was covered here extensively), how some evolutionists condemned the conference while other embraced its revisionist messaging, efforts to prop up unguided evolution with exotic ideas of "plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, cultural evolution," etc.

    If you've ever owned an automobile toward the end of its life, the situation will be familiar: the multiple problems all at once, the multiple attempted fixes, the expense, the trouble, the worry about the car breaking dying at any inconvenient or dangerous moment (like in the middle of the freeway), all of which together signal that it's time not to sell the car (who would want it?) but to have it towed off and donated to charity for a tax credit.

    Buryani doesn't mention the intelligent design theorists in attendance at the Royal Society meeting — Stephen Meyer, Günter Bechly, Douglas Axes, Paul Nelson, and others. He doesn't mention the challenge from intelligent design at all. That's okay. I didn't expect him to do so. Anyway, readers of Evolution News will already be familiar with most everything Buryani reports.


    Despairing Statements

    He concludes with seemingly despairing statements from evolutionists along the lines of, "Oh, we never needed a grand, coherent theory like that, after all."

    Over the past decade the influential biochemist Ford Doolittle has published essays rubbishing the idea that the life sciences need codification. "We don't need no friggin' new synthesis. We didn't even really need the old synthesis," he told me....

    The computational biologist Eugene Koonin thinks people should get used to theories not fitting together. Unification is a mirage. "In my view there is no — can be no — single theory of evolution," he told me.

    I see. Evolutionists have, until now, been very, very reluctant to admit such things in the popular media. Always, the obligation was heeded to present an illusory picture of wedded bliss to the unwashed, which, if given some idea of the truth, would draw its own conclusions and maybe even take up with total "heresies" like intelligent design. Now that illusion of blessed domesticity has been cast aside in a most dramatic fashion. Read the rest of Buryani's article. Your eyebrows will go up numerous times.









    Last edited by GodismyJudge; 07-03-2022 at 07:25 AM. Reason: format
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GodismyJudge For This Useful Post:

    Ezekiel 33 (07-05-2022), John (07-01-2022)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,640
    Thanked: 5995
    Blog Entries
    2
    The truth is evolutionists are blind

  4. #3
    Is somebody finally asking the right questions?

  5. #4
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    The truth is evolutionists are blind
    And totally disingenuous. No way a person in their right logical mind could ever think that there were odds that everything in our ecosystem including living creatures all evolved into what we have today and interacts. The chances that just ONE species would evolve and have a male and female and everything in each one evolve perfect so they could procreate. Much less millions of species and the ecosystem that supports them. It isn't one in a multi trillion odds, the odds are infinitesimal. It could NEVER happen without a creator that already had life in Himself.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    GodismyJudge (07-02-2022)

  7. #5
    Richard Dawkins wrote that"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."





    .
    Last edited by GodismyJudge; 07-03-2022 at 11:44 AM.
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  8. #6
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    The truth is evolutionists are blind
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    And totally disingenuous. No way a person in their right logical mind could ever think that there were odds that everything in our ecosystem including living creatures all evolved into what we have today and interacts. The chances that just ONE species would evolve and have a male and female and everything in each one evolve perfect so they could procreate. Much less millions of species and the ecosystem that supports them. It isn't one in a multi trillion odds, the odds are infinitesimal. It could NEVER happen without a creator that already had life in Himself.
    This is what I'm talking about and just saw it after I posted the above. Even this writer in Popular Mechanics realizes what I said, but he calls it 'luck'. This doesn't even happen by luck.

    Intelligent Life Really Can't Exist Anywhere Else

    Our own evolution on Earth was pure luck.

    Intelligent Life Really Can’t Exist Anywhere Else

  9. #7
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,640
    Thanked: 5995
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    This is what I'm talking about and just saw it after I posted the above. Even this writer in Popular Mechanics realizes what I said, but he calls it 'luck'. This doesn't even happen by luck.

    Intelligent Life Really Can't Exist Anywhere Else

    Our own evolution on Earth was pure luck.

    Intelligent Life Really Can't Exist Anywhere Else

    That's all they have left...luck

  10. #8
    Senior Member Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Everett, Washington
    Posts
    1,629
    Thanked: 1786
    Blog Entries
    1
    This is most likely who the evolutionist will meet upon their death. https://image.freepik.com/free-vecto..._172986-20.jpg
    If you put God First, you have Him at Last.

  11. #9
    They are fools. All of them.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can mitigate major repair costs with an extended service plan for your Jaguar. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in surprise expense, now is the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.