Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,519
55,216
Woods
✟4,585,764.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A deeply confused article by someone with no expertise at all in the subject.

All biologists question both Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, to the extent that either one is actually a thing. Both the original Darwinian formulation of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis are clearly incorrect at a number of points, and modern evolutionary theory has moved beyond both. What virtually no biologists question is the reality of common descent and the roles of random mutations and natural selection in adaptive evolution.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
A deeply confused article by someone with no expertise at all in the subject.

All biologists question both Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, to the extent that either one is actually a thing. Both the original Darwinian formulation of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis are clearly incorrect at a number of points, and modern evolutionary theory has moved beyond both. What virtually no biologists question is the reality of common descent and the roles of random mutations and natural selection in adaptive evolution.
I would agree with you. I had a few years of graduate schooling in biochemistry, heavily skewed towards genetics. As an undergraduate I did a lot of reading on Darwin, the usual 'Beagle' and 'Origin', but also including his letters. Strict Darwinism has been passed over. Now it looks like such things as punctuated equilibrium, so new and compelling when it came out, are in for their knocks. Not that evolution in general is in trouble. It's not like creationism is the next big thing in scientific understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Open Heart
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Don't forget biologists face pressures to accept Darwinism if they want to keep their jobs.
When I was in college there was a bias against Christians in general amongst several powerful professors in the biology department. If you were against abortion you were nothing to them. Not all of the professors. I got along well with the genetics and evolutionary biology professors but felt the scorn of others.

I never saw a bit of that in graduate school, and oddly we did have one deliberate Christian professor who did not toe the party line on Darwinism. Of course, by the graduate level many creationists probably had weeded themselves out of careers in biology.

Myself, while not a Darwin worshiper, focused on evolution, from paleontology to genetics. I have to admit there really is something there. What exactly is of course not as clear as orthodox Darwinians would say there was. I'm not at all a creationist and not even so sure about intelligent design. God did something intentional and profound, from nothing, but how that aligns with fossils and genes I have not solved yet. Those who think they have solved it are blowing hot air IMHO.
 
Upvote 0

Tomm

Christian
Supporter
Jan 30, 2007
1,788
895
WS
✟278,556.00
Country
Brazil
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
How many biologists do you know?

I don't know any of them, but I do know the pressures they face.
Also I know the big picture - the leftist infiltration of society, the pressures to accept Darwainism was a product of leftist infiltration.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I don't know any of them, but I do know the pressures they face.
Also I know the big picture - the leftist infiltration of society, the pressures to accept Darwainism was a product of leftist infiltration.
We did have one real hard core Communist Biology professor in college who taught History of Science. He was actually pretty good because you knew exactly where he was coming from. And he was not petty about disliking people he disagreed with. It was the Feminists who put pressure on people.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,545
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,778.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No. But it's still 1/3 vs. 2/3.

upload_2019-5-18_19-3-42.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-5-18_19-2-33.png
    upload_2019-5-18_19-2-33.png
    57.9 KB · Views: 6
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't know any of them, but I do know the pressures they face.
Also I know the big picture - the leftist infiltration of society, the pressures to accept Darwainism was a product of leftist infiltration.
How do you know that? It bears no relationship at all to the reality I see. I'm a biologist, and I've worked with hundreds of biologists. Scientists accept evolution because it works, scientifically speaking: it explains enormous amounts of data from multiple fields of study, predicts new data successfully time after time, and opens up new, fruitful questions to explore. Until someone offers a model that works anything like as well, they'll keep using it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,545
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,778.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just to be clear -- are you merely slandering scientists at random, or are you actually under the impression that there's some kind of big money supporting evolution?

LOL. Well, not slander, exactly; more like pragmatism. Science programs, especially in universities, depend on money; and if a scientist were to propose a course of study into human origins, or biological development of any type, that did not have Darwinism as its basis, you and I both know he wouldn't get a dime.

I have ascertained from numerous sources that a lot of scientists will tell their sponsors whatever they have to in order to get the funding they need for whatever program they may be running---but that doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the premise. Privately, they may admit the whole thing is a load of booshwah, but they're not about to upset the applecart. And in addition, a lot of these folks have spent many years and many dollars getting to where they are----career track, tenure, reputation, etc., etc., etc., and they are unwilling to throw that all away over a silly little thing like personal conviction. ;)

So it's not slander, precisely; it's more like an acknowledgement that the scientists know fully well where the bear dumps in the buckwheat, and they work within the confines of the system that they are unable to change at the current time.

As for big money supporting evolution, sure it does. When was the last time you heard of the National Science Foundation or the Smithsonian Institution giving a $5 million dollar grant to a guy studying intelligent design, or panspermia, or young-earth catastrophism? ;)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: antiquarian
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
LOL. Well, not slander, exactly; more like pragmatism.
Yes, it's exactly slander -- unless it's true, of course. So your job is to support the truthfulness of your claim.
Science programs, especially in universities, depend on money; and if a scientist were to propose a course of study into human origins, or biological development of any type, that did not have Darwinism as its basis, you and I both know he wouldn't get a dime.
Well, of course not (ignoring the fact that "Darwinism" isn't actually a thing, and isn't the basis of scientific studies -- I'll assume you meant evolution). We also both know that a scientist proposing a course of study in solid state physics wouldn't get a dime for any study that did not have atomism as its base. Scientific studies that reject the foundational scientific framework for their fields are not going to get funded -- and they shouldn't.
I have ascertained from numerous sources that a lot of scientists will tell their sponsors whatever they have to in order to get the funding they need for whatever program they may be running---but that doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the premise. Privately, they may admit the whole thing is a load of booshwah, but they're not about to upset the applecart. And in addition, a lot of these folks have spent many years and many dollars getting to where they are----career track, tenure, reputation, etc., etc., etc., and they are unwilling to throw that all away over a silly little thing like personal conviction. ;)
Okay, so here's your evidence. . . but you don't actually provide any, just "numerous sources". Who are these sources? What did they actually say? What evidence did they present? Who are the scientists you think are applying for grants in evolutionary biology without actually thinking that evolution is true? As I said, I've worked with hundreds of biologists, and I've never met one that looked anything like that, so who are these people, and where are they hiding?
As for big money supporting evolution, sure it does.
Big money supports cancer research and things like that. Evolution gets table scraps.
When was the last time you heard of the National Science Foundation or the Smithsonian Institution giving a $5 million dollar grant to a guy studying intelligent design, or panspermia, or young-earth catastrophism? ;)
Panspermia can get funding -- that is, the search for life on other planets, or in meteorites or the like. (Not great funding, to be sure, but neither does evolution.) Intelligent design can't get funding because it's at best a concept, not a testable scientific hypothesis. Young-earth catastrophism can't get funding because it's utter nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,545
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,778.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Catholics are the only ones that can debate in OBOB. I do not see anything addressed here from the article I posted.

My apologies on that, Michie; I posted what I figured would be an amusing comment about funding and it turned into a debate. I will withdraw from the thread. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,519
55,216
Woods
✟4,585,764.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My apologies on that, Michie; I posted what I figured would be an amusing comment about funding and it turned into a debate. I will withdraw from the thread. Sorry.
Not you @Wolseley. We keep having people that are not Catholic and debating on the safe haven. You are free to debate all you want. And I agree about the funding. I've heard the same many times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wolseley
Upvote 0