Darwinism Is Dying

We found this amazing article in the Trumpet. That’s a publication of the Philadelphia Church of God, which has a theological connection to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. Their headline is More Scientists Skeptical of Darwinism. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Evolution has become the universally accepted theory for the origin of life [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!], yet it is increasingly being called into question. According to a report published by the Federalist on April 16, many professional academic biologists now question Darwin’s theory of evolution.

They’re talking about this article, which is bizarre beyond description: Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism. It was written by a law student. The Trumpet says:

The growing dissent [Gasp!] is also revealed in the document “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” which contains over 1,000 signatures of scientists around the world who are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” They are calling for an “examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve written several times about that pathetic Discoveroid list of dentists, proctologists, and sociologists — most recently here: The Discoveroids Are Gaining Momentum. Then the Trumpet tells us:

In his 2008 documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein investigated the academia’s crackdown on criticism of Darwinism. Speaking to several scientists, Stein highlighted Darwin’s overly simplified understanding of cell complexity at the time his theory, The Origin of Species, was published in 1859.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s been years since anyone cited that bankrupt creationist “documentary.” Here’s Wikipedia’s article on it: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Our last post about it was 8 years ago — see View the Bankruptcy Court Bids for “Expelled”. The Trumpet continues:

Despite the increasing acknowledgment of Darwin’s flawed reasoning [Huh?], the Federalist finished by saying that scientists’ goal “is not to abandon Darwin, but to retire him to make way for more coherent, comprehensive theories.” Scientists still refuse to consider the validity of any theory that involves a creator.

Scientists are fools! Let’s read on:

Herbert W. Armstrong, editor in chief of the Plain Truth, predecessor to the Trumpet … delved into an exhaustive study of evolutionary theory and the Bible. Much of what he found is compiled in his booklet Does God Exist? [Link omitted.]. Through his study, he found “no proof for the theory of evolution. It is purely a theory — a belief — a faith, not based on proof. … I found proof of the existence of the Creator God.”

Isn’t this great? Here’s another excerpt:

In 1950, Mr. Armstrong wrote, “Evolution is Satan’s most powerful modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy.” It is Satan’s attempt to deprive man of the knowledge of their great Creator God and the incredible future that He has in store for them.

One final excerpt:

Scientists are seeking to prove the origin of the creation without a Creator. But over and again they have failed. There is only one explanation: a Creator God.

Your Curmudgeon is pleased to have brought you this information. Take it seriously, dear reader — before it’s too late!

Copyright © 2019. 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

15 responses to “Darwinism Is Dying

  1. What was the date of the Federalist article?
    “is not to abandon Darwin, but to retire him to make way for more coherent, comprehensive theories.”
    *might* have been true about 1900.

  2. Laurettte McGovern

    Didn’t we hear this same spiel 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago? I do wish they would get new material, because this has become rather jejune

  3. The Trumpet says that The Federalist says that Behe, says that ” I would guesstimate that a third or more of biologists are quite skeptical that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology.”

    Are there any biologists who imagine for a moment “that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology”? Did Darwin?

    But what can you expect from an article that begins “Evolution has become the universally accepted theory for the origin of life”?

  4. Michael Fugate

    That Federalist article may be one of the more confused articles ever written – common descent is not in question and gods are no where in sight.

    From the Nature back and forth on current theory
    We believe that the EES [extended evolutionary synthesis] will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

    It is simply a call to expand the “gene-centric” approach of the modern synthesis of 80 years ago.

    Then again it is the Federalist and the author is a law student, a Christian, and a Texan – all those years of McLeroy on the State Board of Education have taken their toll.

  5. Hasn’t everybody heard about Glenn R. Morton’s essay about The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism? I notice that there was a posting in this blog back in 2008 July 12, and there are lots of copies of it around the web (It is marked “Copyright 2002 G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.”). Here is one whch is dated from 2004:
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm
    “… I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.”

  6. Michael Fugate

    One only need read this to have all your doubts removed…
    https://www.thetrumpet.com/literature/read/1176-does-god-exist/45
    You know it is the truth, when it contains a section that begins, “An atheist once asked me…”

  7. Are there any biologists who imagine for a moment “that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology”? Did Darwin?
    Darwin had two mechanisms for evolution, “natrual selection” and “sexual selecton”. There has been generally accepted at least one more mechanism since Darwin, “genetic drift”. Lynn Margulis’s (and earlier Konstantin Mereschkowski’s) endosymbiotic theory is widely accepted.

    On the other hand, none other than Michael Behe has written, “… I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have to reason to doubt it. … I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.” Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, page 5.

    There is a Wikipedia “Level of support for evolution”, but I don’t know how it is keeping up to date – it was created in 2007.

  8. “and have to reason to doubt it” is ofc a typo for “and have NO reason to doubt it”; I just checked.

    Darwin did not know about genes or mutation, both built into all evolutionary thinking since around 1920. So in a sense he didn’t have any mechanism through which natural and sexual selection could act, let alone any explanation for the amount of change required for speciation. Dalton, founder of the modern atomic theory, had no idea what held atoms together in molecules, but no one uses this as a reason to reject atoms, or even to belittle Dalton.

  9. @Paul Braterman
    Thank you very much!
    What a typo to make!
    I just now checked Wikiquote.org, where it has the correct quote, but I discovered another typo there which someone should have corrected.

  10. @LauretteMcG is an optimist: “I do wish they would get new material”
    You’d better wish you’ll find a pot with gold at the end of a rainbow; then it’s more likely that it will be granted.

  11. Here’s something new.
    Can random variations and natural selection tell us about the biological function, if any, of the element scandium?
    Whatever the action of scandium, it could happen by intelligent design/the supernatural/the omnipotent.
    So there, you Darwinists!

  12. It is worthwhile to read the original article in the Federalist “Why one third of biologists now questions Darwinism”, written by a law student a month ago.

    Really bizarre, as our SC describes it. Particularly amusing I found Paul Nelson cited saying “One-on-one at a scientific meeting after the third or fourth beer, my experience has been that many evolutionary biologists will say ‘Yeah, this theory’s got a lot of problems.’”
    The article parades a whole bunch of Discoveroids as the new experts in evolutionary theory and then tells us that Intelligent Design is “religion-neutral”!

  13. “…to make way for more coherent, comprehensive theories.”

    Let me guess: these “theories” involve spontaneous creation out of nothing. And inbreeding in populations generated from just two individuals, magically blossoming out into all the viable sexually reproducing species we see today. And so on.

    “Evolution is Satan’s most powerful…” yawn yawn yawn. Plus communism. Feminism. Abortion. Secularism. Rock music. The list goes on (“La-de-da-de-dee/ la-de-da-de-daa”).

    Satan works in ways utterly indistinguishable from man (or woman!). What galls me is Satan gets all the credit (or blame!). Just this once, I’d like to see Satan bestir himself a little and demonstrate his supernatural prowess.

  14. @TomS: isn’t it sad that we here have to think up new creacrap stuff? That they can’t even do their own job themselves?

  15. @FrankB
    They have been reworking the arguments from the 18th century against reproduction, as negative arguments against a different process, evolution.
    Aside from the bad fit of those negatives, we’ve been telling them for more than a hundred years that they are lacking a positive.