Evolutionism (vs. ID)

Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

[See, also,  this page  for dozens of related references.]

Zombie Science
The history of science shows that the [scientific] consensus is often wrong…  According to biophysicist Cornelius Hunter, Darwin’s theory was more theology than science. ‘Ultimately, evolution is not about the scientific details.  Ultimately, evolution is about God’…  The lack of evidence for [Darwinian] macroevolution became obvious at a November 2016 meeting of evolutionary biologists at the prestigious Royal Society of London. Austrian biologist Gerd Müller (who helped organize the meeting) spoke first, pointing out that current evolutionary theory fails to explain (among other things) the origin of new anatomical structures in living creatures (that is, macroevolution). Müller and most of the other speakers advocated an ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’ (EES) to correct the problem…  By the end of the meeting, however, it was clear that advocates of the EES had failed to meet the challenge posed by Müller on the first day: they could not explain macroevolution.



Prominent Biology Journal Demands Government Censorship — Rather Than Scientific Investigation — of Intelligent Design



In Science, a Factually and Logically Challenged Letter Decries ID and                 Discovery Institute



Darwin Was Sexist, and So Are Many Modern Scientists
Darwinian theory has justified sexist attitudes and behavior among scientists for well over a century



National Science Teaching Association Censors Open Inquiry, Stonewalls When Questioned


… &

[T]he National Science Teaching Association is undermining excellence in education on two fronts.  First, it has diluted its mission by adding political-correctness advocacy to its docket.  Among its 38 position statements are missives on ‘Gender Equity in Science Education,’ ‘Multicultural Science Education,’ and ‘Poverty,’ as if those have anything to do with the empirical sciences, and its longwinded statement on ‘Climate Science‘ doubles down on the ‘overwhelming scientific consensus‘ while psychologizing alternative positions as ‘cognitive biases’ related to ‘one’s faith, family, and personal emotional experiences‘.  Second, regarding evolution, [the NSTA] has contorted the very meaning of critical thinking into its exact opposite.  Efforts to ‘teach the controversy‘ or present ‘strengths and weaknesses of evolution‘ amount to ‘twisting and abusing core pedagogical principles‘ and ‘open[ing] science classroom doors to non-science‘… [Yet] In subsequent editions of The Origin of Species, Darwin himself responded carefully to his critics and added, ‘I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality‘…  So now [to the NSTA]… gender equity and multiculturalism are ‘science,’ but weighing the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory is ‘non-science [and] Darwin’s theory is ‘science,’ but Darwin’s engagement with criticism is ‘non-science.’  And with presumably straight faces, [the NSTA] call this ‘excellence and innovation.’  This double-minded activism is an Orwellian innovation that science would be better off without.



Yale University’s David Gelernter: To Challenge Darwinism Is to “Take Your Life in Your Hands



… modern science encourages conformity…  For a start, you need to… take on a kind of disciplinary worldview… part of what the philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn called a ‘paradigm’…  In such an environment, researchers are bound to be conservative [regarding their] career…  This makes science more productive, but less creative.  Enquiries can become hidebound and unadventurous.  As a result, truly revolutionary research — the domain of the maverick — is increasingly hard to pursue.



In 2016, Szostak’s lab published a paper in Nature Chemistry, in which they said they had found a way to get RNA to self-replicate. That paper has now been retracted. The reason?
In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our evolutionary paradigm].



Fake Science: “About 99 Percent of Our DNA Is Identical to That of Chimpanzees”



Science Has All Kinds of Non Scientific Influences and Motivations



Pseudoenzymes Illustrate Science’s Philosophical Commitments



Peer-reviewed scientific paper which says the human hand was designed                           by a ‘Creator’ sparks controversy


… &

Mob with Pitchforks Forms as Science Journal PLOS ONE Acknowledges “Proper Design   by the Creator”


… &

Censorship in Real Time — PLOS ONE Retracts “Proper Design by the Creator” Paper


… &

PLOS ONE “Creator” Scandal Enters Witch-hunt Territory


… &

Scientism Out of Hand
‘Creatorgate’ and the Sorry State of Science


… &

Thank goodness scientists know how to jointly exercise message discipline and enforce doctrine with an iron fist.



Success in science is based on a singular criterion: how well does the theory perform at predicting future scientific outcomes?



Biology Textbooks:

Textbooks Still (2020) Misrepresent the Origin of Life



Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still (2015) Present in Biology Textbooks Here’s a List



Textbooks by Intelligent Design Critic Donald Prothero Are Some of the Most Recent to Reprint Phony Embryo Drawings



This research is profoundly insipid work, and it’s remarkable that it was published in a leading science journal.



Are Evolutionists Lowering the Standard of Life?



Cheaters Never Prosper?  Sure They Do in Origin-of-Life Papers



“… people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ — scientists especially.  If not they are unemployable.  It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers…
Lynn Margulis, Ph.D. (Genetics, U.C. Berkeley), Recipient of the Presidential Medal of Science in 1999 (from Democrat Bill Clinton)


[Speaking of evoulutionism and ‘truth‘…]

Evolutionary biologist and University of California Professor Donald Hoffman:
Evolution ruthlessly selects against truth strategies. [As a result…] An organism that sees objective reality is always less fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees fitness pay-offs. Seeing objective reality will make you extinct.
Eric Baum, PhDs(2)(Physics, Computer Science):
Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.
Steven Pinker, PhD (Psychology):
Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.

Conclusion: Survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard by which truth can be known, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.  But if this conclusion is true, how, then, can anyone know that evolution itself is true?



The Rise of Totalitarian Science
Darwin Day in America



… Pearson states ‘Miller and Urey’s experiment suggest that organic compounds necessary for life could have been arisen from simpler compounds on a primitive Earth.’ That is a false statement.






Want to Leave a Reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s