Evolution: An idea on the verge of extinction
Most scientists are starting to realize that the Victorian English doctrine of "Evolution" is well-past it's use-by date. Every day, thanks to sites like this, scientists are starting to discover that Intelligent Design is the only solution to all of the gaps in evolutionary theory. Scientists are starting to realize that the very concepts upon which the "science" of evolution is based just do not make sense:
For example, consider the phrase "Survival of the fittest". Die-hard evolutionists propose that this is the "moral force" behind the whole of evolution. But what does it actually mean? Well we all know what "survive means" - it means not becoming extinct, and having the most offspring. If you ask a Darwinist to define "fittest", you may be surprised to hear exactly the same definition: it means not becoming extinct, and having the most offspring. Could Darwinists have been so silly to have based their entire field of study on a glaringly obvious tautology?
What if "Survival of the fittest" were the "engine" that drives life on? Do we really live in a selfish world where only the most ruthless competitors stand a chance of survival? Fortunately this is not the case. When Darwin originally wrote his "Origin of Species" he was completely unaware of the many forms of symbiosis, co-operation and even generosity in the animal kingdom. The only way a Darwinist can continue to believe in this core dogma is by closing his eyes to the last hundred years of biological research.
Unlike Evolutionists, we Proponents of ID do not pretend that we have all the answers. We only wish to humbly point out that scientists who refuse to accept Intelligent Design may be risking lives. For example, it is widely acknowledged amongst AIDS researchers that the reason why the virus is so hard to fight is because it "evolves". Millions of dollars are being spent on researching how this life-form evolves and where has it got us? Perhaps the reason for failure of conventional research has less to do with "bad luck" or "lack of budget", but a fundamentally wrong approach. Is it not possible that life cannot evolve in the way that Darwinists think, but that it only adapts in precisely the way predicted by the theory of Intelligent Design?
There is much work still to do, but as yet mainstream science has not yet managed to argue away this new science. I think this may be proof that our ideas are valid. All we need to do in order to win this debate is to keep making clear arguments that show the inherent contradictions and absurdities of Darwinism. I believe that ID provides exactly the scientific framework to help simplify the complex problems that continue to puzzle mankind. I personally predict that one or more of the bigger commercial research organisations will come over to our side of the debate within a matter of months: Why wouldn't they accept the truth when there is so much of their own money at stake!
I feel that by starting "Most scientists" you lose a lot of credibility. You can't mean over 50% of scientists, surely? Where on earth have you got this data - that over 50% of scientists, a good few million humans, agree with this leftfield maverick theory? Why write "Most"?
That stops the casual reader getting to your mopst important point about "survival of the fittest" being a tautology. This is an exciting new argument that no-one to the best of my knowledge has ever addressed.
Littlejon, A good comment and I can understand your skepticism, however we must have faith in the scientific process that the TRUTH will out! I cannot believe that the Intelligent Designer is playing tricks on us, so I expect that most scientists (and I mean this literally) will come over to our side of the debate. Biotech firms which study virus and bacterial behavior have invested a great deal of money in their "evolutionary" pardigm. As soon as one biotech firm realize that it is a dead end, I predict the others will follow.
The phrase "Most Scientists" is actually realistic because the majority of people who work in science do not have anything to do with biotech matters. The Computer Scientists, Physicists, Geologists etc will soon change their talk when they realze that the Evolutionary Biologists have been leading them up the proverbial garden path!
First, the claim that evolution is on the verge extinction has been around, in one form or another, for over a hundred years. For a good collection of similar claims, check this out:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm
Sure, maybe it will be just around the corner, but be prepared that darwinists will post that same link and say the same thing if you ever happen to mention such a claim in any online debate.
Second, survival of the fittest a tautology? Sure, if one presents it in the way too simple way. There's more to it in the evolutionary sense. That is, it doesn't only mean that survivors will survive (d'oh!), it also means that heritability comes in to the equation. Ie. heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. It is the layman's version that causes the tautology, but it is not the explanation darwinism has. Fitness is more than survival. As darwinists will be quick to point out.
Or as you said: "Could Darwinists have been so silly to have based their entire field of study on a glaringly obvious tautology?"
No. I don't think they were so silly. Stephen Jay Gould explained this topic very well:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_tautology.html
I would advice against using arguments that are in YEC arsenal. It is best to focus on the new arguments; Biological information, limits of mutations, etc.
Finally, for ID to make the breakthrough we still need much more scientific papers on the line. More research. More projects. This requires that we focus on the scientific aspect of ID.
Second, survival of the fittest a tautology? Sure, if one presents it in the way too simple way. There's more to it in the evolutionary sense. That is, it doesn't only mean that survivors will survive (d'oh!), it also means that heritability comes in to the equation. Ie. heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. It is the layman's version that causes the tautology, but it is not the explanation darwinism has. Fitness is more than survival. As darwinists will be quick to point out.
Or as you said: "Could Darwinists have been so silly to have based their entire field of study on a glaringly obvious tautology?"
Diaboli, I agree that evolution as a science is not a tautology, however, adding "reproductive success" to the equation does not save "survival of the fittest" from being a tautology. I'll give you a minute to think about this one. I am sure you have read this in the literature from the "creationist camp."
Also, you need not worry about it marring Darwin's reputation since that really wasn't Darwin's tautology, but Herbert Spencer's.
Finally, for ID to make the breakthrough we still need much more scientific papers on the line. More research. More projects. This requires that we focus on the scientific aspect of ID.
I agree.
Now that we'll be seeing ID being taught in UK schools (the birthplace of evolution science) slowly we'll see the whole atheistic world of evolution tumble. I can't wait to have my first lesson on ID, it will be much better than the normal boring RE lesson. Real science in in RE, cool
:)
I personally think that science and religion have been artificially seperated. If something is a fact then it is a fact. Religion should acknoqledge that we owe the ordered universe to the creator, and any science project that does not take account of the fact that we live in a god-ordained ordered universe is doomed to fail.
You're absolutely right… the idea that science and religion should be separated is the result of a subtle but profound presupposition. That is, when someone says that science and religion must be separated, they are really saying that one of the two does not pursue truth. And of course, usually they mean religion.
They assume first that all religions are false… that all religions are just fairy tales created by humans in a desperate attempt to assign meaning to what everyone really knows is a meaningless life. From within that presupposition, it's quite logical to say that religion and science should be separate. After all, science pursues truth and religion, any religion, is just a fairy tale.
Trouble is, that presupposition is obviously false, and Intelligent Design is demonstrating that all to clearly for some folks. Granted, (controversial statement coming up) most religions may indeed be false. But that doesn't make all religions false. It just might be that one "religion" is actually true.
Bottom line is that science is not opposed to religion by definition. If one religion is true, and science pursues the truth honestly and objectively, then science will eventually point toward the religion which is true.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
The only question left is how quickly this will happen. I would say that within 50 yrs no-one on earth will think that humans & chimps have a common ancestor, or that new species can ever appear. I also think it will be clear that an intelligence planned every one of the half-million species of beetle. But I'm not sure we will be sure why it did this, as this wouold be going beyond natural explaantion, so nothing to do with science.
I don't know why you would assert that. There are many ID proponents who fully support common descent from pan troglodyte to homo sapien. Although some of them don't support ALL the historical narratives (especially the land animals to whales story). Now John Davison would say that evolution has ended but others believe it is still occurring; albeit obviously the mechanism for change is an intelligent mechanism and not RM+NS. There's also the possibility of creating new species through genetic engineering and the modification of existing species.
On a side note, here is an interesting topic on the number of species:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1936
But I'm not sure we will be sure why it did this, as this wouold be going beyond natural explaantion, so nothing to do with science.
Baloney. If we observe the creation of new CSI, or at least the expression of front-loaded information, there could be a research program to understand this mechanism.
To Be Fair
To be fair, when most ID proponents refer to "Darwinism" we're not referring to Darwin's original concept also known as "selectionism". Although many of the public in the UK supposedly support that stance it'll be rare to find a scientist who does so. Even a reference to the "modern synthesis" or Neo-Darwinism isn't exact. There are also multiple Darwinist camps with competing ideas. Lynn Margulis's use of the word at the World Summit on Evolution 2005 appears to indicate that "Darwinism" transcends a particular formation of the TOE and instead encapsulates the general stance that chance and necessity is enough to explain biology (and other things).