Evidence for God from Science

Source: Peer-Reviewed Paper Concludes that Darwinism "Has Pretty Much Reached the End of Its Rope"

An interesting paper was recently published by David Depew and Bruce Weber in the journal Biological Theory. The paper bears the title "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis." Its abstract summarizes the article's contents:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

Notably, the paper's authors seem to share the view of the genome that ID proponents have been advocating for years: "There is probably very little 'junk DNA.' The entire genome, including its frequent repeats, plays a role in regulating gene expression." In support of this, they cite a 2011 paper by Pink et al. (Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health and disease?).

Contrary to the Darwin lobby's oft-repeated assertion that there are absolutely no weaknesses in Darwinian theory, the paper offers the concession that the modern synthesis has never provided an account of "how major forms of life evolved" -- an omission that is not unsubstantial, to put it mildly.

Find the entire article here.

*End quote*


So this very much seems to be where all the evidence is leading us -- Darwinian Gradualism is just not capable of producing the diverse complex, integrated, information-rich biological systems that continue to amaze us day after revealing day of discovery. For all those without an invested interest in maintaining the status quo (funding, a pay cheque) many are realising that it is time the modern evolutionary synthesis received yet another major overhaul.

Stu wrote:For all those without an invested interest in maintaining the status quo (funding, a pay cheque) many are realising that it is time the modern evolutionary synthesis received yet another major overhaul.

People don't get Nobel prizes and other awards and recognition for merely maintaining the status quo.

Stu's http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/ha ... 55941.html article:

In spite of all this, the authors are nonetheless confident that a new general theory and conceptual framework of evolution will be forthcoming, and that this will make up for where current formulations of evolution fail. But this is mere speculation.

The paper's authors:

Let us be clear, too, that in saying this we are not saying that Darwinism as such is on its deathbed. Here, we reach a fourth point. The impending demise of various articulations of the genetical theory of natural selection does not in the least imply that the entire Darwinian research tradition is on the verge of failure. ...

This is an important point. When Darwinism’s complex conceptual and discursive history is ignored, critiques of one or another of its many articulations tend to present themselves as falsifications of Darwinism as such. This is just what is wrong with What Darwin Got Wrong, a book recently addressed to the public by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (2010).

Science changes as new data comes in. Where in this is there any hint of a shift to intelligent design?

sandy_mcd wrote:Stu's http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/ha ... 55941.html article:
In spite of all this, the authors are nonetheless confident that a new general theory and conceptual framework of evolution will be forthcoming, and that this will make up for where current formulations of evolution fail. But this is mere speculation.
The paper's authors:
Let us be clear, too, that in saying this we are not saying that Darwinism as such is on its deathbed. Here, we reach a fourth point. The impending demise of various articulations of the genetical theory of natural selection does not in the least imply that the entire Darwinian research tradition is on the verge of failure. ...

This bit:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

That is huge.

Science changes as new data comes in. Where in this is there any hint of a shift to intelligent design?

Yes precisely; yet you will find there will be many that refuse to diverge from current thinking and will cling to it even in the face of growing evidence. In fact I predict it won't happen, the main forces and bodies behind neo-Darwinism won't see revision as a positive or necessity despite what the science is telling us, as they are too heavily invested in the current paradigm.

I have never suggested there is a general shift toward ID, rather that the modern evolutionary synthesis is in dire need of another major overhaul.

Science changes as new data comes in. Where in this is there any hint of a shift to intelligent design?

What do you mean change? Are you saying science evoloves? Does truth change as new data comes in? I think what you need to say is that conclusions change and interpretations change. Darwinism isn't a conclusion of the data. It is a lens through which the data is viewed. A lens that comes at the expense of other views.
Perhaps the authors suggest that the new data indicates it is time to change this prejuducal exclusion of a starting point. (Intelligence)
I wonder how many will be humble enough to discard the lens and be open to another perspective. Doesn't sound like you are too keen on removing the lens Sandy.

Stu wrote:I have never suggested there is a general shift toward ID, rather that the modern evolutionary synthesis is in dire need of another major overhaul.

Cool, you're a scientist at heart. Change the theory to fit the data.

jlay wrote:What do you mean change? Are you saying science evoloves?

Of course. Look at the theory of atoms over the years. It has changed dramatically.

jlay wrote: Does truth change as new data comes in?

Of course not. Science isn't equivalent to truth. It is the best model we have for representing the world.

jlay wrote: I think what you need to say is that conclusions change and interpretations change.

True. More data may indeed lead to a different conclusion.

jlay wrote: Darwinism isn't a conclusion of the data. It is a lens through which the data is viewed.

That's your opinion. Scientists don't agree.

jlay wrote:Perhaps the authors suggest that the new data indicates it is time to change this prejuducal exclusion of a starting point. (Intelligence)

The authors explicitly state otherwise - read the paper.

sandy_mcd wrote:That's your opinion. Scientists don't agree.

I didn't know you were a spokes person for "Scientists"?

Furthermore, not understanding ones bias makes for a poor scientist.

K,
The lab coats are the holy robes.

It deems one's presuppositions as sacred and above reproach even to the point of saying another's are beyond consideration.

If 'science' is so fallible then you would expect a more humble position. I don't expect it from the Darwinists. If you conflate evolution (changes) we see to the theory of evolution and repeat the mantra long enough, well... In fact that is exactly how brainwashing works.

Stu wrote:Source: Peer-Reviewed Paper Concludes that Darwinism "Has Pretty Much Reached the End of Its Rope"

An interesting paper was recently published by David Depew and Bruce Weber in the journal Biological Theory. The paper bears the title "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis." Its abstract summarizes the article's contents:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

Notably, the paper's authors seem to share the view of the genome that ID proponents have been advocating for years: "There is probably very little 'junk DNA.' The entire genome, including its frequent repeats, plays a role in regulating gene expression." In support of this, they cite a 2011 paper by Pink et al. (Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health and disease?).

Contrary to the Darwin lobby's oft-repeated assertion that there are absolutely no weaknesses in Darwinian theory, the paper offers the concession that the modern synthesis has never provided an account of "how major forms of life evolved" -- an omission that is not unsubstantial, to put it mildly.

Find the entire article here.

*End quote*


So this very much seems to be where all the evidence is leading us -- Darwinian Gradualism is just not capable of producing the diverse complex, integrated, information-rich biological systems that continue to amaze us day after revealing day of discovery. For all those without an invested interest in maintaining the status quo (funding, a pay cheque) many are realising that it is time the modern evolutionary synthesis received yet another major overhaul.

The only reason macro evolution and abiogenesis is hanging on by a thread is because the general public would loose faith in the scientific community , and, theyd have to re-write all the school textbooks including getting rid of the titillizing air-brushed Monkey Men lineup . When Evolutionists themselves speak out against their field, you know its been fallacious all along :

" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.



" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.



" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway,
1991, page 59.


" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on
Trial. 1991. page 82.

From an article in Science Digest Special---

" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94



" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the
greatest deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup,
Embriologist. Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.

" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.



" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature (than a Creator)"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.

And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer (and my
favorite) ----

" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- agnostic Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116.

CallMeDave wrote:" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- agnostic Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116.

Yeah what a great quote! Think I'll put that one in the library