Discoveroids Predict Desperate Darwinist Behavior

There’s a frightening title to the latest post at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute: Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?, and it has no author’s by-line.

Just below the title is an amazing photograph of Jonathan Wells, about whom we’ve written recently — see We’re Defeated by Evolution’s Biggest Problems. For background information about Wells, we referred you to one of our earlier posts, Discovery Institute: The Genius of Jonathan Wells. But if you really want to know about him, see his write-up at Wikipedia: Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). They have a lot of information about his multi-decade career with the Unification Church — i.e., the “Moonies” — and then his affiliation with the Discoveroids.

Okay, that’s who Wells is. Now lets get back to the Discoveroid post. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A new ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!] spotlights The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith [Amazon link], and specifically, an essay in the new anthology by biologist Jonathan Wells, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?”

They blogged about a different chapter of that book recently, about which we wrote We’re Defeated by Evolution’s Biggest Problems. Okay, back to the Discoveroids. They say:

As Wells and host Casey Luskin [Hee hee!] note, the essay title alludes to philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn’s influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Is Darwin’s theory in crisis? Let’s find out. The Discoveroid post tells us:

Kuhn argued there that if one studies the history of scientific revolutions, one finds that when the scientific evidence has begun to turn against a dominant scientific paradigm — when its days are numbered — its adherents do not simply concede defeat. [They don’t?] Instead they use all their institutional power to suppress dissent and punish proponents of any competing paradigm.

Well, yeah — that’s what Galileo encountered. But we’re a bit more civilized now — at least that’s how it seems to us. For example, when the eternally oscillating model of the universe was challenged by observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down because of gravity, we don’t recall any violent opposition. Anyway, the Discoveroid post continues:

This is the period of crisis, which can last for years and even decades. Wells contends that modern evolutionary theory is a current instance of a dominant paradigm in crisis.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’re getting near the end of the Discoveroids’ exciting post. Here’s another excerpt:

He briefly makes the case in this episode, and at greater length in his essay, which appears in the newly released anthology from Harvest House, edited by William Dembski, Casey Luskin, and Joseph Holden.

Sounds wonderful. Their post ends with this:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Okay, dear reader, you better start getting ready. The Moonie-Discoveroid is predicting some extreme times ahead, as the traditionalist Darwinists “use all their institutional power to suppress dissent and punish proponents of any competing paradigm.” It’s going to be wild!

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

22 responses to “Discoveroids Predict Desperate Darwinist Behavior

  1. Using Jonathan’s logic, God suppresses and punishes dissent, therefore God is a theory in crisis. Oh wait he might be on to something.

  2. chris schilling

    If anything is in crisis, it’s probably Jonathan Well’s arteries. The man is pushing eighty now, and expanding exponentially (just like the universe, but with more double chins). Imagine having wasted your adult life devoted to an obsession with destroying Darwinism, only to realise time has run out and you won’t live to see your cherished, longed-for dream come to fruition.

    (Casey is still relatively young; still optimistic. Plenty of time for him to become embittered and disillusioned).

  3. And the old paradigm is not discarded until there is a new paradigm which is not troubled by the difficulties of the old paradigm.
    In the case of contemporary sciences:
    Physics has two old paradigms, the one developed from quantum mechanics, the other from the general theory of relativity; and there are several new paradigms which are contending, for example, developments of string theory. The outcome is not decided.
    In the case of biology, there is no new paradigm contending with evolution.

  4. The paradigm shift they are asking for is to let the supernatural creep into science. It’s not going to happen.

  5. Physics is indeed a theory in crisis.
    Yet being a theory in crisis is not enough to overthrow the old paradigms. One cannot say that string theory defeats the Standard Model. (As far as I know, no one goes so far as to say thst the crisis in physics is an argument for Intrlligrnt Dedign. Who would say that ID is a Theory of Everyhing? God could “explain” any value, whatever it turns out to be – whatever number, how many dimensions of space and time?)

  6. The common thread is evidence. When Galileo championed the heliocentric model, the evidence for it was difficult to comprehend, consisting chiefly of how much better it explained the retrograde motion of the planets. Given heliocentrism, there was no reason to suppose that their motion actually changed. Apparent retrograde motion was evidence, and it was eventually universally (well, nearly universally) accepted as compelling evidence for heliocentrism.

    But “intelligent design”? First of all, there is no specific proposition. What intelligence? How many intelligences? What did it or they do? When? Where? How?

    That is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is not even a conjecture, not even a wild-ass guess, because those have to be at least specific. No, it’s a largely meaningless untestable assertion.

    “Theory in crisis”, quotha? Get back to me when you’ve got a theory.

  7. @David Luckett
    About retrograde or other peculiarities of the motions of the planets. Galileo didn’t have any new observations of the motions of the planets. The Aristotle-Ptolemy model accounted for retrograde motions. Not perfectly, but Galileo and Copernicus didn’t have a perfect model,
    Geocentrism was accepted for as long as it was because, at least in part, because there was no alternative. Copernicus provided an alternative. The heliocentric model did not work all that better, but it did work.

  8. Dave Luckett

    I regret to differ, TomS. The Aristotle-Ptolemy model measured retrograde motion, but couldn’t explain it. Tables of epicycles could be compiled, but no ancient astronomer could explain why epicycles existed, or why the apparent motion of the planets slowed down and speeded up. It couldn’t be explained by geocentrism, except by invoking the supernatural – God was advancing or retarding or even reversing their motions for inscrutable reasons of His own. And that, as we know well, is no explanation at all.

  9. @Dave Luckett
    OK, but Copernicus and Galileo couldn’t explain the motions, either. That took Newton.
    What Copernicus’s model improved was that there weren’t intersections or collisions of spheres that carried the planets. Galileo got rid of the difference between sub-lunar material and heavenly stuff, which his telescope showed wasn’t useful.

  10. Wow apparently Copernicus had 8 more epicycles than Ptolemy because he insisted the planets orbit in perfect circles. Kepler eliminated the need for epicycles with his theory of elliptical orbits. Did not know that!

  11. ” But we’re a bit more civilized now — at least that’s how it seems to us.” I have read that in the US, as late as the 1950s, untenured faculty avoided pursuing continental drift because their elders regarded it as heresy. In the UK, the concept had been accepted for decades

  12. My Time Cube work has led me to formulate the Special Theory of Quantum Creation (the STQC). When it is announced, the Darwinists will wail and moan, and the Discoveroids will rally to my banner.

  13. Christine Marie Janis

    @Paul Braterman. Continental drift was still not adopted by the senior geology faculty at Harvard in the 1970s!

  14. Bill Farrell

    For how long have the Tooters been predicting the demise of “Darwinism?” Twenty-five years?

  15. More false prophets. You would think false prophets recycle bin would be eating up all the drive space by now.

  16. @Bill Farrell, Darwin’s Demise (Md. Comninellis Nicholas and Joe White, 2001), The Collapse of Darwinism: Or The Rise of a Realist Theory of Life (Graeme D. Snooks, 2003), and so on allthe way back to The Refutation of Darwinism: And the Converse Theory of Development; Based Exclusively Upon Darwin’s Facts (T Warren O’Neill, 1879). I list 45 at; evenmore at

  17. @Bill Farrell et alii:
    There are several copies online of the 2002 (?) essay by Glenn R. Morton: The Imminent Demise of Darwinism: The Oldest Falsehood in Creationism. It gives examples starting in the 19th century. It is mentioned every so often in this blog.

  18. @Bill Farrell et alii:
    There are several copies online of the 2002 (?) essay by Glenn R. Morton: The Imminent Demise of Darwinism: The Oldest Falsehood in Creationism. It gives examples starting in the 19th century. It is mentioned every so often in this blog.

  19. We posted about the “Imminent Demise” way back in the first year of this humble blog: The Imminent Demise of Evolution, But our link to the article by Glenn Morton is no longer operative.

  20. The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
    Glenn R Morton’s essay was posted with the permission that it could be copied if it was with no changes or charges. There are copies in:

  21. @TomS: Yes, that’s the one I lnked to earlier in answersinscience; that takes us to 2008 and my own bloglink adds about ten more recent titles

  22. Well, Denton’s “Evolution: A theory in crisis” was published in 1985. That makes the crisis almost 40 years old, with no sign of a paradigm switch.