ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Evolution of the gaps

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Evolution of the gaps Empty Evolution of the gaps Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:25 pm



Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), pp. 168-169.

Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!


Evolution of the gaps are dogmatic inferences to adaptive just-so stories, stated with absolute conviction and marked with an extensive usage of buzzword 'evolution' that serves as camouflage for complete lack of any scientific explanation or observational evidence for postulated unknown alien phenomena under the investigation. For example, Stephen Jay Gould admitted his own functionalist biases as he was once criticized by Francis Crick for hastily attributing a certain phenomenon to evolution, expressed in form of an adaptive story invented with alacrity and agility, even prior to finding out the real mechanism behind it.[1] Szostak provided the following explanation why evolutionists are condemned to make the frequent inferences to evolution of the gap: As they do not feel smart enough to design things, they prefer to resort to alien unknown mechanism of evolution "to do the hard work" and only afterwards they attempt to figure out what happened


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum