Latest from the Discovery Institute: Nineteenth Century Science

To be fair, this is based on a magazine article published in 1909, nevertheless,I feel fairly safe saying the science is from the nineteenth century. 

The blog post is here:

A new edition of Wallace book, Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, is out now, edited by science historian Michael Flannery. 

It is worth pointing out that Wallace published a book, Darwinism , in which he defended much of Darwin's ideas, and was itself foundational for neo-Darwinism, as it moved the theory away from inheritance of acquired characteristics .

However, Wallace did hold to teleology, i.e., that evolution was directed. This is, of course, what appeals to the creationists at the DI... And is what over a century of subsequent science has rejected. It is worth remembering that a lot of scientists are Christians and followers of other religions, so hard to imagine why they would reject teleology - unless that is what the evidence points to.

More from the blog:

In his Foreword to the new book, William A. Dembski notes how current scholarship is demolishing the neo-Darwinian paradigm and confirming Wallace at almost every turn. 

Is Dembski delusional? Or just plain lying? This is so far detached from the truth it is amazing.

When we look at that first generation of modern evolutionists, from Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley to John Tyndall and Herbert Spencer, only Wallace’s postulation of an “Overruling Intelligence” to explain the complexities of humanity and nature has stood the test of time. 

And yet it is Darwin's theory that actual scientists embrace, not Wallace's “Overruling Intelligence”  - and that is true no matter what their religious persuasion.

Two theories better than one?

The Amazon page for the book has an excerpt from Dembski's forward. He offers this, frankly bizarre, argument:

When scientists have a good idea, they can be tempted to explain everything with it. That was certainly the case for Darwin with natural selection-not only was he tempted, but he succumbed to the temptation. No scientific idea, however, is so brilliant or powerful that it legitimately explains everything.

Darwin is wrong - in Dembski's view - because Darwin applies his theory to everything; thermodynamics, astronomy, particle physics... Except, of course, that Darwin did not. Darwin applied it only to the origin of species. But why let facts get in the way of empty rhetoric.

Thus, rather than apply natural selection indiscriminately, Wallace concluded in 1869 that although it could explain a lot, natural selection could not explain everything.

To Dembski, Wallace is a good scientist because he had two theories when Darwin had one. His argument is not that Wallace's theories are better or have more evidence, his argument here is only that Wallace has two, and that that is enough to make it better.

Worth pointing out here that the holy grail of physics is the theory of everything - one theory that will do exactly what Dembski argues against! 

But then, creationists have no real arguments, so they have to make stuff up, and I guess their followers just too dumb to think otherwise.

Projection

Darwin developed his theory of evolution not from painstaking field analysis by testing hypotheses against the evidence and following it dutifully wherever it led, as he and his supporters to this day so insistently claim; rather, he came to the field already armed and equipped with a materialist worldview that served as both the lens through which he made his observations of the natural world and then as the framework into which he made them fit.

Is Dembski unaware that Darwin spent nearly five years on the Beagle? I guess not. I wonder what "painstaking field analysis" Dembski has ever done. My guess is: none whatsoever.

This is so far detached from truth it is laughable - but is, ironically, much closer to the creationist situation. Darwin was originally a Christian - so much so that he intended to enter the church. Darwin did indeed follow the evidence dutifully. It led him to atheism.

That is what Dembski hates so much. It is not that Darwin followed the evidence, it is that the evidence led Darwin to the conclusion Dembski's religion disagrees with.

Because Demski, and all his fellow creationists, do exactly what Dembski accuses Darwin of. They have already decided creationism is true. To them, science is finding evidence to support their religious beliefs.

We know that "Intelligent Design" was set up not to see if intelligent design is true, but to destroy its rival materialism because the original charter - the Wedge Document - says exactly that:

However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. 

We know creationist "universities" are not doing real science because they require their professors to sign a document saying they believe in creationism (eg see here, here and here). They are contractually prohibited from dutifully following the evidence if it heads anywhere else.

Hypocrisy and projection. Where would creationism be without it? It is like they sit around thinking what is wrong with their own position, they pretend it is true of Darwin. Jesus would say they should look to the beam in their own eyes, but why should they care about what Jesus said?