More Recent Comments

Monday, May 18, 2009

Who Knew?

The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & Views
Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. He can explain why "Darwinism" is false in only two paragraphs [Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False].
Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions;1 and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

When it comes to evaluating Creationist arguments, we are often faced with a difficult decision. Is the Creationist just ignorant or is he lying? I think it's much easier to answer that question in Wells' case. He has a Ph.D. in biology from a reputable university. It's not possible for him to be that ingnorant about the basic facts of biology.

1. It's a lie that non-coding DNA is fully functional and it's a lie that "neo-Darwinism" predicts the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in some species.


  1. According to Wells on the DI podcast a while back, evolution is only the best natural explanation.

    "When we look at the evidence for Darwinian evolution, its pathetic.
    Its not overwhelming, its underwhelming. And as soon as people learn that they will realise that Darwinism is not good science, what it is is the best natural explanation for what we see, but that doesnt make it the real explanation for what we see. Its artificially constrained by this materialistic philosophy that inspired this radical redefinition of science in 2001. Without that radical redefinition of
    science, if people are encouraged to follow the evidence, Darwinism
    will fall."

  2. I missed the "radical redefinition of science in 2001." What's that all about?

    Also, imminent demise of evolution! Again!

  3. The imminent demise of evolution is like the return of "the Messiah": it's always about to happen, but never does.