Dawkins’ confusion over darwinism (and religion)

Dawkins has the most useless take on both revolution and religion: i am reluctant to even post his junk, backed up by that propagandist coyne who should know better and probably does.

Dawkins is wrong about natural selection and he uses that error to claim darwinism disproves the design argument. And this has been going on for forty years.
It is a scandal that the ID group, despite their own religious confusions and evolutionary pseudo-science, sees through darwinism where Dawkins is stubbornly confused…
we can comment on the religion issue later…Dawkins on religion is atrocious and I am not even a theist…

Reader Michael called my attention to Richard Dawkins’s Darwin Day Lecture to Humanists UK (HUK). Richard is introduced by Humanists UK President and evolutionary biologist Alice Roberts, who…

Source: Dawkins’s Darwin Day lecture for Humanists UK: “Taking Courage from Darwin to Fight the Hubris of Faith” « Why Evolution Is True

Design versus ‘Intelligent’ Design

Despite our challenge to darwinism, and support of the idea of design, we might well challenge the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ rather than simply ‘design’. The use of the term ‘intelligent’ is no doubt a deliberate attempt to introduce either ‘god’ or at least some ‘mental power’ in the universe connected to evolution. But the gesture is not legitimate: the idea of a design inference allows us to see ‘design’ but its source may or may not be an ‘intelligent mind’ but a process that mimics intelligence, perhaps, but is something different. the distinction is crucial. The idea of design suggests teleology in nature but we cannot produce theology around that. The distinction is essential because the abuse of design arguments in proofs of the existence of god has long since flunked a Kantian metaphysical test. The idea of design however cannot be dismissed using natural selection arguments and the attempt to do so has almost destroyed biological reasoning of scientists…
It may well be that there is some ‘intelligent’ power in the universe, man is one of them, and philosophers like Hegel use the term ‘geist’ (spirit, or mind) explicitly, but that is open to Kantian challenge and in any case is far more sophisticated and reasoned than creationist theologizing…

It is almost incredible that at this late date scientists in a journal such as Science are still in denial over the issue of (irreducible) complexity and the design factor in biology/evolution.

Source: Behe won the argument long ago…dumbing down of science ED…//A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al. – Darwiniana

Behe won the argument long ago…dumbing down of science ED…//A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.

It is almost incredible that at this late date scientists in a journal such as Science are still in denial over the issue of (irreducible) complexity and the design factor in biology/evolution. The problems pointed to by Behe have not been really answered for the simple reason that they can’t be: design in complex machines, even given some possible but dubious counterexamples, cannot be explained with the usual boilerplate about natural selection…
A whole generation of students of science has been dumbed down to darwinian idiocy about natural selection and have lost the ability to think…

In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Darwin Devolves, Behe continues his quixotic efforts to overturn modern evolutionary theory.

Source: A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.

The Dissent from Darwinism list now tops 1000 scientists 

In time for Darwin’s birthday February 12:The Dissent statement represents a splash of cold water on the great man. It reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Source: The Dissent from Darwinism list now tops 1000 scientists | Uncommon Descent

  the darwinian ideology was exposed long ago…//Beyond Natural Selection: Robert Wesson

A quiet classic exposing darwinism nearly a generation ago in the 90’s: this book must leave us with the suspicion that biologists already know the ‘Paradigm’ is bunk but conform to the pubic ideology…Outsiders are needed here, still…

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Natural-Selection-MIT-Press/dp/0262731029/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1546920980&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+natural+selection

WHEE and ‘evolution’…2.1 The Legacy of Darwinism

The discussion of evolution and its theories in Chapter 2 of World History and the Eonic Effect (WHEE) remains relevant even after almost twenty years, a sign of the frozen state of evolutionary theories. There is nothing complicated about it, in essence: the failure of natural selection is the only key concept in such a critique. This situation is changing but even now a simple declaration of the failure of natural selection is muted or absent in the innovative still sidelined books on ‘evolution’.
Continue reading WHEE and ‘evolution’…2.1 The Legacy of Darwinism

Biological fields?…//The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect 

Source: The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect – Darwiniana

As you read this watch your brain shut down as the reigning paradigm asserts control, assuming you are a ‘darwinist’…You never think about ‘evolution’, you just believe what biologists tell you, little suspicious they are complete idiots here.
—————————–
Biologists are in a mysterious funk on the question of evolution: it would seem to a more sensible view, given the criticism of darwinism in terms of statistics, that there is no way the conventional account can work. We have noted here repeatedly, citing the insight of the great scientist Fred Hoyle, who was under no threat of academic retaliation, given his brilliance and reputation, that natural selection can’t be right, period. Biologists should have moved on long ago, but, amazingly, to the great discredit of science, the whole field is stuck in an absurdity. Continue reading Biological fields?…//The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect