Evolution in the related senses of transformism, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and evolutionism
Jason Rosenhouse’s “Among the Creationists” (Oxford, 2012) is a journalistic-style exploration of “creationist subculture” by a mathematician who claims to be open-minded but skeptical. The reality is he’s an atheistic evolutionist looking for weaknesses in creationism while trying to understand these “insular” people. It’s still a good read but what are the weaknesses he finds? […]
Philosophers of biology try to clarify what scientists are really doing. One answer to “what is the theory of evolution?” is given here excerpted from “Philosophy of Biology” by Thomas Pradeu (Paris-Sorbonne University). http://thomaspradeu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Pradeu_Philo-bio_OUP_Final.pdf “Philosophy of biology” refers to the critical examination of the conceptual, theoretical and methodological foundations of today’s life sciences. … Important
For evolution time and change are critical. If there is insufficient time for evolution, it fails. If time and change don’t explain everything, evolution fails. The backbone of evolution is its dating methods. Time is the key to evolution. But time is not a critical variable for creationists. Creation is basically the same as it
Charles Darwin should be accepted as a colleague of scientists who disagree with him, and one who made significant contributions to the progress of science. Whatever disagreements there are with what he wrote should not blind people to what he was: a scientist among scientists. As Newton’s name was used by the so-called Enlightenment to
“Design” is one of those terms many people use but few define. Two aspects of design are: (1) to plan and (2) to make. An evolutionist might say that “nature made man” but would never say “nature planned man.” The theistic evolutionist might say “God planned man” but avoids saying “God made man” except in some
Emil Brunner in Christianity and Civilization (1948) wrote: “the popular belief that the idea of evolution and progress was first worked out within natural science, and thence affected the conception of history, is false. The reverse is true: the idea has been transplanted from an evolutionary conception of history into natural science. Lamarck and Darwin are not
Based on the standard biological taxonomy here is a logarithmic model of the relationship between the time it takes life to reach the diversity that is observed today and possible positions on the lowest rank of the initial taxa of life, which I shall call prototypes. Prototypes of the species rank would take tens of years to arrive
Some sensible thoughts and observations from an evolutionary biologist: The Folly of Scientism by Austin L. Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism A few excerpts: All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some
The evolution paradigm begins by doubting ancient peoples and ancient history. They’re all seen as primitive peoples with worthless myths. Compared to modern societies and technologies, they don’t have anything to offer us. We should dismiss them, ignore their writings, and start from scratch. It’s no wonder we come up with evolutionary theories that place modern society
The key to explaining everything in a domain is to project the data onto an explanatory space that is intuitively clear. So evolutionists project all life onto an axis defined by the extremes of law and chance. If they are presented with evidence of design, they just analyze it onto law and chance and say
