Doubts about Darwin

Growing Skeptical of Darwinism


Abstract
This post explores some of the reasons for the Growing Skepticism about Darwinism that we see among many Scientists and Intellectuals.


Introduction
Why is there Growing Skepticism about Darwinism among many Scientists and Intellectuals?

As described in another post, I have come across a number of quotes by Evolutionists and other scientists indicating that Evolution (colloquially called Darwinism or neo-Darwinsm or Theory of Evolution) is based on Faith, and can validly be considered to be an Ideological (or Religious) faith.

I have also come across Growing Skepticism about Darwinism among many Scientists and Intellectuals.

This post explores some of the reasons for such skepticism.


Dr. David Berlinski, Ph.D. (Princeton University)
  • The suggestion that Darwin’s theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences – quantum electrodynamics, say – is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen unyielding decimal places. Darwin’s theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.

  • Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak to non-existent selection effects.

  • Darwin’s theory is open at one end since there are no plausible account for the origins of life.

  • The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

  • A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.

  • Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

  • Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

  • The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?

  • These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are “no valid criticisms of Darwin’s theory,” as so many recent editorials have suggested.

  • Excerpts from Darwinian Doubts, by Dr. David Berlinkski.

Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (UC Berkeley), Ph.D. (Yale University)
Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. Why is this?