Thread: Is 'Darwinism' on its way out?

Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

If you highlight the above text it will reveal the substance of the video I watched recently. I didn't write it but any thoughts on the precis there?

More to the point, what I got from the discussion - if I understood it correctly - is that the three agree that much evolution would have to have happened within a period of around 70 million years, and that this would give insufficient time for those species to evolve as they did by natural selection. Is this a regular view? Or are they mavericks?

That kind of timescale seems difficult to conceive of but it can be done - you could look at 20 generations taking us back to B.C. to help provide some perspective. And if you can get some perspective and listen to these three you have to wonder if there might be some truth to what has been said. Does anyone on here have a strong view either way?

Originally Posted by Oscar K

If you highlight the above text it will reveal the substance of the video I watched recently. I didn't write it but any thoughts on the precis there?

More to the point, what I got from the discussion - if I understood it correctly - is that the three agree that much evolution would have to have happened within a period of around 70 million years, and that this would give insufficient time for those species to evolve as they did by natural selection. Is this a regular view? Or are they mavericks?

It's garbage

you could look at 20 generations taking us back to B.C. to help provide some perspective.

I think it would be a tad more than 20 generations.

Originally Posted by Origin

Originally Posted by Oscar K

If you highlight the above text it will reveal the substance of the video I watched recently. I didn't write it but any thoughts on the precis there?

More to the point, what I got from the discussion - if I understood it correctly - is that the three agree that much evolution would have to have happened within a period of around 70 million years, and that this would give insufficient time for those species to evolve as they did by natural selection. Is this a regular view? Or are they mavericks?

It's garbage Thanks for the insight.

you could look at 20 generations taking us back to B.C. to help provide some perspective.

I think it would be a tad more than 20 generations. Sure, so make it 20 long human lives instead. Five of those periods make 10,000 years. Ten sets of those seem manageable to imagine. So 100,000. Getting hard now. Ten times that is tricky but there's one million for you. 70 of those seems enormous. Time for some natural selection perhaps but not the sudden and explosive kind that would have had to have happened during this period - according to the profs.

.

Originally Posted by Oscar K

If you highlight the above text it will reveal the substance of the video I watched recently. I didn't write it but any thoughts on the precis there?

More to the point, what I got from the discussion - if I understood it correctly - is that the three agree that much evolution would have to have happened within a period of around 70 million years, and that this would give insufficient time for those species to evolve as they did by natural selection. Is this a regular view? Or are they mavericks?

That kind of timescale seems difficult to conceive of but it can be done - you could look at 20 generations taking us back to B.C. to help provide some perspective. And if you can get some perspective and listen to these three you have to wonder if there might be some truth to what has been said. Does anyone on here have a strong view either way?

This seems to be just more "Intelligent Design" crap. I'd forget it if I were you.

ID is just pseudoscience, motivated by religion. They have no research to back up any of their claims. None of these people is taken seriously in the science community.

Evolution goes back about 4 billion years which is enough time for evolution by natural selection.
One of the problems Darwin had was in his day was that the earth was only believed to be a few million years old which was insufficient time for his theory.
But he knew he was right and modern dating of the earth and DNA evidence has proved he was correct.

From wiki:

Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.

Quick glance: Pretty much same dossier for Berlinsky while Gerlernter a computer whiz.

Wonder why Meyer is a "former" educator?

Darwin will always be a theory to these guys.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

From wiki:

Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.

Quick glance: Pretty much same dossier for Berlinsky while Gerlernter a computer whiz.

Wonder why Meyer is a "former" educator?

Darwin will always be a theory to these guys.

From his biog, Berlinski seems to be a bit like the notorious James Tour, that is to say an ID "fellow traveller" who doesn't like to say openly that he endorses it.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

From wiki:

Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.

Quick glance: Pretty much same dossier for Berlinsky while Gerlernter a computer whiz.

Wonder why Meyer is a "former" educator?

Darwin will always be a theory to these guys.

From his biog, Berlinski seems to be a bit like the notorious James Tour, that is to say an ID "fellow traveller" who doesn't like to say openly that he endorses it.

My skeptical nature says something funny going on here. This sounds like a follow the money enterprise. I’d masquerade as Jesus Christ if it paid well.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

From wiki:

Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.

Quick glance: Pretty much same dossier for Berlinsky while Gerlernter a computer whiz.

Wonder why Meyer is a "former" educator?

Darwin will always be a theory to these guys.

From his biog, Berlinski seems to be a bit like the notorious James Tour, that is to say an ID "fellow traveller" who doesn't like to say openly that he endorses it.

My skeptical nature says something funny going on here. This sounds like a follow the money enterprise. I’d masquerade as Jesus Christ if it paid well.

All it is, I suspect, is that now that ID is widely recognised as pseudoscience, no practising scientist wants to be tarred with the ID brush directly. Tour, for instance has quite reputation in organic synthetic chemistry.

But they actually follow the same agenda as ID (denial of evolution) and they collaborate with the ID people at the Discovery Institute accordingly, while maintaining the pretence of keeping their distance from it. Shills, in fact.

It is important to get dates right. Genus homo seems to go back 4 million years, while homo erectus is dated from about 2 million years ago. Earliest homo sapiens arrived on the scene around 200,000 years ago,allowing plenty of time for evolution to take place.

The origin of all multicellular things appears to be about 550 million years ago.

Appreciate the responses. I didn't know whether or not the 70 million year timescale mentioned had any bearing on the subject but I see it doesn't.

For the record I think Berlinski is a total moral coward and Gerlenter isn't any better. Meyer's a bit bashful but he's entitled to more self-respect than either of the other two due to having an actually position.