Darwinism Continues to Devolve

As many people know, particles-to-painter evolution is fundamental to atheism. One can have a reasonable dialogue for a short time with a professing atheist on a few subjects, but must not criticize evolution. (Indeed, I remember a discussion where the atheist woman thought the Christian was going to criticize evolution, and began to arch her back and extend her claws. It was civil before.) Most of the vocal proponents of evolution are atheists, but the quality of supporters has declined over the years.

Blur of sun and trees image by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One can often judge the substance of a position by its proponents. (No, a comely face and dulcet tones do not make something correct, nor do wise-sounding words. Intelligent supporters may prompt someone to listen more closely to a claim, yes?) Quality opponents can give someone serious pause.

In days of yore, Darwin's disciples were plentiful and famous. They presented what appeared to be valid science according to what was known at the time. Unfortunately, may professing Christians had given in to the beliefs in deep time, and many compromised as far as accepting theistic evolution. Opposition to evolution from knowledgeable and devout creationists was not all that common.

Then evolution took hits from several sides.

Traditional natural selectionist Darwinism was fading away, but it received a jump start by adding mutations. Yee haw boy howdy, here comes the Neo-Darwinism Modern Synthesis! Naturalists had a reprieve. Despite some help from geology, astronomy, and other areas, this version of evolution has doubters within its own ranks.

In addition, the modern creation science movement was galvanized by The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. While several points it made have been questioned, it prompted biblical creationists to ask questions and do research. Through the years, creationists have been able to make presentations, write papers, have seminars, and other things to show that recent creation, the global Genesis Flood, and the Bible are indeed believable.

Then came the Intelligent Design movement. It took a "big tent" approach, accepting numerous beliefs; some are young-age creationists, theistic evolutionists, agnostics, and others. Scientists taking the ID perspective have made challenges to unguided evolution and, therefore, a foundation for atheism.

Public advocates for evolution tend to be obstreperous — bullies, in fact. Instead of presenting compelling evidence, fake peer-reviewed papers are on the rise, bad reasoning, drawing conclusions from incomplete and erroneous evidence, and ranting are utilized. People who actually want serious answers are not getting good results from misotheists.

One sign of a robust scientific theory is the quality of its most prominent proponents. 

During its long history, Darwinian theory has had no shortage of gifted champions, starting with Charles Darwin himself. 

. . . 

Throughout the decades, Darwinism has had many other able scientific advocates. In our own lifetimes, there were Harvard biologists such as Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould. 

And, of course, Oxford University boasted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. A convincing popularizer and polemicist, Dawkins at least started out as a serious scientist who raised some of the right questions.

To read the rest of this article from an ID site (note that the author acts like creation science does not even exist but is still interesting), head on over to "Darwinists Devolve."