It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Biola > Page 2 : Biola News & Communications
technorati tags:biola, philisophia, christi, anthony, flew, atheist, conversion
Blogged with Flock
2 comments:
It is true, God is clearly seen in his creation (Rom. 1:18-20)
I am not a creationist, but I qould like to quote something from my last book (published by Barnes & Noble two months ago):
Repression of flaws in the evidence of Darwinian theory
The quickest way to commit professional suicide in today’s scientific world is to challenge any aspect of Darwinism. The theory is so entrenched as the bedrock of all biological and zoological science that anyone who examines its attacked with a frightening degree of professional hostility.
There is no doubt that the evidence for evolution is conclusive, but elements of Darwin’s theory of mutation combining with natural selection appear to be flawed. Logically, if Darwin’s theory of gradual genetic change was accurate, more evolved creatures should contain complex genetic structures. Comparing the complexity of DNA by looking at the number of chromosome bases shows a human to have 23 pairs compared to a snail with 56. It is an anomaly that orthodox science has not explained.
An example of the suppression of any scientist who questions any aspect of Darwinian theory is that of British biologist Warwick Collins. In 1976 he wrote a paper on sexual selection as an anomaly in Darwinian theory. As he was about to speak at an international conference to explain his paper, renowned geneticist Professor Maynard Smith stood and attacked Collins in front of the audience. He told him he would use his influence to block publication of any further papers he wrote. Smith seems to have been true to his word as Collins continues to have his papers rejected for publication for no given reason.
Respected science journalist and author Richard Milton encountered another form of pro-Darwinist suppression when he was commissioned by the Times Higher Education Supplement to write a critique of Darwinism. It was trailed in the publication the week before with the line: ‘Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack’. This led scientists to write to the editor to try and stop the articles publication claiming the Milton was a ‘secret creationist’ (which he was not, his criticisms were purely scientific objections), ‘loony’ and ‘in need of psychiatric help’. Milton has gone on to be attacked by scientists such as American geologist, David Leveson ‘creationist ally’ merely for asking questions of the theory.
Now, why is it we can have a reasonable debate on this blog but so many scientists are afraid to?
Post a Comment