The Theory of Evolution Is In Its Final Days

This is really big news from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their new post is titled Evolution’s Divide Is Creation’s Opportunity, and you know it’s important because it was written by Randy J. Guliuzza, ICR’s new President & Chief Operating Officer. We wrote about him last year in Big News: ICR Has a New President. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Missed opportunities and bad timing often seem to go together. Military history has several notable examples of commanders who “seized defeat from the jaws of victory” when they delayed to bring closure to a war immediately after a major victory — often because they failed to see how fragmented their opponent truly was. … That military truism has a lot to do with today’s creation-evolution conflict. Many evolutionists are seriously divided over the most basic explanations of how evolution happens. In fact, different factions have diametrically opposite explanations. The split isn’t a minor dustup over trivial difference. Yet when talking with other creationists at ICR events, I discover that nearly all are unaware of this serious divide.

What’s Randy talking about? This could be important, so we need to find out. He says:

Evolutionary biology is experiencing its most serious division over the structure of evolutionary theory since the development of the modern synthesis nearly 100 years ago. The modern synthesis is the name for current evolutionary theory that synthesizes Darwin’s concepts of the selective agency of nature and survival of the fittest, facts about genetics that Darwin lacked (later including the notion of random mutation as the primary source of genetic variation1), and statistical models of populations.

What’s the problem? Randy tells us:

In November 2016, Great Britain’s prestigious Royal Society held a conference to deliberate if evolutionary theory needed to be extended, reformed, or totally overhauled to accommodate fresh ideas from new discoveries. The vital importance of this conference was framed in the science journal Nature in a point-counterpoint style article, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” The authors note that “researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.” A division over basic processes at the core of any theory suggests that the theory could be incomplete, misleading to both research and conclusions, or wrong.

This is the article Randy’s talking about: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?. You can read it on-line without a subscription. Let’s get back to Randy. After skipping an ark-load, he says:

Interestingly, divisions at the Royal Society illustrate an important point that creationists have been saying. Evolutionists often claim that they “have data” to support their position and imply that creationists have none. Creationists contend that they have the same data but interpret it very differently.

The big issue Randy talks about is natural selection:

Selectionism is fatally flawed for two important reasons. First, the actual findings of how adaptation happens are inconsistent with the ways it should be characterized per the modern synthesis, which are: undirected, random, gradual, and without any purposeful product. Yet, numerous mechanisms are being discovered that routinely characterize adaptation as highly regulated, usually rapid, repeatable, and with targeted goals that are even predictable.

The second reason is that selection is an inherently mystical concept — which the discovery of internal mechanisms in organisms is making easier to see. As far as we know, the environment is unconscious and, thus, the analogy comparing it to a conscious human breeder has always been illegitimate.

Darwin’s comparison of humans breeding farm animals for desirable features and what he described as natural selection was never intended to claim that nature was making conscious decisions. Randy ought to know better. He continues:

When selectionists invoke natural selection, they magically project onto nature intelligence and volition that they envision as exercising agency. Selectionists habitually summon selection to “act on,” “favor,” “work on,” “punish,” etc. an organism.

He goes on and on about that and then declares:

Evolutionary theory is in a “struggle for the very soul of the discipline” due to the discovery of pervasive internal mechanisms facilitating self-adjustments that is contradictory to current theory. Evolutionists are fully aware that division weakens their position against creationists and the high theological ramifications at stake. So, it is only a matter of time before they rally, rebuild, and counterattack with a new and improved version of their anti-designer theory.

Get that? Evolution is your “anti-designer theory.” But you can’t fool ol’ Randy. He knows what you’re up to, and he knows you’re in trouble. Let’s read on:

The precise reason for the division centers on the avalanche of new information that’s contrary to evolutionary theory. This same information solidly supports a theory of biological design. Creationists should be pressing this truth at every opportunity.

He finishes with this:

The theory that ICR is working on expects active, problem-solving creatures designed to track changing conditions to “fill the earth,” showcasing the wisdom of their Creator — the Lord Jesus Christ.

Did you get the message, dear reader? Your pathetic theory of evolution is in big trouble. Now you know.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

15 responses to “The Theory of Evolution Is In Its Final Days

  1. “The precise reason for the division centers on the avalanche of new information”

    He just compared information with a pile of snow which is not an inherently mystical concept, therefore information is not mystical, therefore evolution totally rulez.

  2. Puck Mendelssohn

    Golly. What’s the standard estimate? Five years, and then kerplooie? I think that’s what they’ve always said, so that works for me. Five years, and evolutionary theory collapses. The tricky part seems to be in figgerin’ out when the five years starts. My guess is “never,” but who knows?

  3. Selection is an inherently mystical concept? Sorry Randy, but to paraphrase Laplace, science has no need of the mystical hypothesis.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Division? Creationists can’t even agree if various hominids are ‘man’. It’s kind of a glaring problem.

  5. Remember the compilation by Glenn R Morton, “The Immiment Demise of Evolution”?
    They’re still predicting that.

  6. No,it is not “struggle for the very soul of the discipline”, it is (I tracked down the quotation) https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a, a piece of self-promotion controversial only in its self-importance, and notorious for the way journalists and creationists use it as clickbait. And, btw, 2014

  7. It’s not worth a separate post, but the Discoveroids are promoting the same idea. See Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting.

  8. @SC, yes, the same line of argument

  9. Christine Marie Janis

    I was at that 2016 Royal Society meeting. Randy was not. ’nuff said.

  10. bewilderbeast

    So JESUS made us!? I thought it was his Dad?

  11. Dave Luckett

    @ bewiderbeast: The first three verses of John’s Gospel.

  12. “The first three verses of John’s Gospel.”

    John 1:1: A-well, a bird, bird, b-bird is the word.

  13. Dave Luckett

    richard: Yes, well, it makes just about as much sense as that, until you start fooling about with what is meant by “the Word”. Not very far down that road lies gnosticism, and the idea that Christianity is a mystery religion – which it kinda is – and everything falls into irrelevance about then. But I was trying to explain why a section of evangelical thought makes Jesus the actual hands-on creator of all things, and relegates God the Father to a kind of shadowy eminence in the background, awful but never seen.

    As I remarked in a slightly different connection, the urge to ask them “And how did you get on with your own father?” is almost unendurable.