Hot News: Evolutionist Admits Theory Is Wrong!

Brace yourself for a shock, dear reader — a big shock. At the website Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Convention’s news service, we spotted this headline: Evolutionary scientist admits theory’s major flaws.

Egad — this looks serious! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

Gasp — that’s stunning news! Wikipedia has a write-up on Gerd B. Müller. He’s no bible college science teacher; he seems to be real. The Baptist Press says:

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the staunchest advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] The Discoveroids say Müller’s admission is “devastating.” The Baptist Press tells us:

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.

We had to verify Müller’s remarks. We’re told that his presentation was reported in Interface Focus. That’s a publication of the Royal Society. At their website we found Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary, dated 18 August 2017. You can read it online without a subscription. According to the abstract, Müller recommends a “renewed and extended theoretical synthesis” of evolutionary biology to replace the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s because:

Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

That doesn’t sound much like creationism to us. Müller says the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES):

takes account of the plurality of factors and causal relations in evolutionary processes. It continues to see variation, differential reproduction, heredity, natural selection, drift, etc., as necessary components of evolution, but it differs in how these factors are conceptualized. In addition, in the EES, development assumes a constructive role, natural selection is not the only way that variation in populations can be modified, causation does not run solely in one direction from the external environment to populations and, instead of a single inheritance mechanism, several modes of transmission exist between generations.

Müller refers to “the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate” and says:

The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory. It should not be used in discussion of the EES, which rarely makes any allusions to macroevolution, although it is sometimes forced to do so.

In his final paragraph, Müller says:

This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. [Emphasis supplied.]

We don’t see anything that even remotely refers to divine creation or intelligent design. Yet the Baptist Press implies otherwise. They say:

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ll be charitable and avoid saying that the Baptist Press is deliberately giving us a gross distortion of Müller’s remarks, but their article is clearly the result of their misunderstanding, or perhaps wishful thinking, which isn’t uncommon when creationists discuss science.

So don’t be misled, dear reader. The latest reports about the collapse of evolution are, shall we say, somewhat exaggerated.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Hot News: Evolutionist Admits Theory Is Wrong!

  1. Holding The Line In Florida

    If you haven’t seen King Crocduck on you tube here is an example. What happens to creation or ID scientists is finally explained. If you don’t want to see the whole video. Start at minute 11. https://youtu.be/IPyKaH09lpc

  2. Michael Fugate

    I think the word they were looking for was “incomplete” not “wrong”.

  3. That was attended by Larry Moran in London 2016, who says of the now published papers. “Most of these papers are locked behind a paywall and that’s a good thing because you won’t be tempted to read them. The overall quality is atrocious—the Royal Society should be embarrassed to publish them”
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis.html

  4. Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly.

    And this is supposed to be an argument against evolution?

    What whoever wrote this hack job for the Baptist Press seems not to realize is that evolution can, and does, eliminate opportunities for further development as well as create them. You can’t breed a dog which can breathe underwater, either, but so what? What would you breed a dog with to get such a creature? The lineage of the dog has shed the genetic basis for such changes, and if it were restored the resulting creature wouldn’t be a dog and wouldn’t look much like a dog. (A flying “dog” would probably look something like a chihuahua crossed with a bat; I shudder to imagine what a water-breathing one would look like.)

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    I’m not sure about where the DI is going with this venture. What they are talking about seems to be simply related to the fact that science knows there are all kinds of interactions between species.

    For example, maybe, oh, a hurricane or something like that rolls over huge amounts of mashed up DNA, or even just whole intact species of critters, and distributes them to other “pristine” locations where those DNA pieces get to interact. Does The DI know that right there in their own sacred sack of DNA that “interlopers”, like the little critters in their gastric plumbing centers, having a grand time swapping things with them?

  6. Larry Moran also covered Müller’s views somewhat in
    Intelligent Design Creationists reveal their top story of 2016

    Müller complained about the Modern Synthesis version of evolutionary theory where mutation plus natural selection equals evolution. He claimed that this was the version presented in all the modern textbooks and it’s wrong.

    The next talk was by Douglas Futuyma, author of the leading textbook on evolution. He pointed out that even his first edition, in 1986, contained most of what Müller talked about. Futuyma described how his textbook differed from the old-fashioned view of the Modern Synthesis that Müller claims is promoted in every textbook. In other words, the audience was treated to a masterful repudiation of just about everything Müller said about the textbooks and the modern view of evolutionary theory. (I doubt very much that Gerd Müller has even read a modern textbook because he seems to be ignorant of Neutral Theory and random genetic drift, both of which are extensively covered in all textbooks.)

  7. @Eric Lipps “I shudder to imagine what a water-breathing one would look like.”
    Cthulhu?

  8. Sigh. The old canard that since evolution doesn`t cover abiogenesis, evolution fails.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    While Müller was calling out evolution’s shortcomings, why didn’t he call out lack of transitional fossils, the Cambrian Explosion, ostrich knees, and all the other faults that scientists have been keeping under wraps? Or is only under half the conspiracy to cover things up?

  10. Articles like this stem from trying to do science while guided by scripture and belief, rather than evidence.

    The Baptist Press should stick to being wrong about religion, and leave science to those who are actually qualified.

  11. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    EVOLUTIONIST FINALLY ADMITS WHAT ALL THE OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS REFUSE TO ADMIT

    PYGMIES+DWARFS+OSTRICH KNEES=JESUS!!

  12. Yet another piece merely showing evolutionary theory continues to develop. At the same time, creationists characterize scientists’ questions as the failure of evolution while offering no evidence to support their own side. How long must we endure these rubes?

  13. Yep, time to strike Evolution from the books and replace it with what in terms of belief? Christianity? Catholicism? Buddhism? Islam? Hinduism? Because we all know the religions have sorted it all out for us.

    Silly, muddled thinking that belongs to the denizens of fantasy land.

  14. But…but…ToE never had anything to say about the origins of life and it never said it did! That’s abiogenesis. That’s chemistry.

    I’m pleased to have stumbled on your blog. I’m enjoying it.

  15. @Coyote, did you mean: The Baptist Press should stick to being wrong about religion, and leave being wrong about science to those who are actually qualified.

    At your service 😉

  16. @Ceteris Paribus, it’s not the DI this time, but the Southern Baptists. See how easy it is to confuse the two? But the DI is totally not young-earth creationist.

  17. I don’t get it.

    First Our Curmudgeon quotes Baptist Press as admitting that Müller’s article did not advocate creationism or intelligent design:

    BP: “Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs”

    Then he proceeds to express mock dismay when various Müller excerpts fail to advocate creationism or intelligent design:

    SC: “That doesn’t sound much like creationism to us.”

    SC: “We don’t see anything that even remotely refers to divine creation or intelligent design.”

    And finally, Our Curmudgeon concludes that the Baptist Press implies something which they had previously explicitly denied:

    SC: “We don’t see anything that even remotely refers to divine creation or intelligent design. Yet the Baptist Press implies otherwise. They say: ‘Many Christians reject the theory yada yada . . . ‘

    I myself see nothing in that last BP excerpt that could be interpreted as BP implying that Müller advocated creationism or intelligent design.

    I just don’t get it.