“Zombie” Evolution

Ray Comfort has produced a new video where he tries to debunk evolution. I think it lacks information and will mostly stir up righteous indignation, anger, or emotion.

I think that a more useful tool is a pdf document entitled Debunking Evolution by John Michael Fischer. In it he quotes evolutionists, such as Bruce G. Charlton,  a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyme, and theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham, about the dangers of “Zombie Science”:

“Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.”

To say “that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication. And anyway, there are… the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart.”

“Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down.” “Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science.”

–Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. “Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest.” Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

Fischer’s pdf document also has an interesting quote from Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, about how Darwinism was birthed in ignorance:

“Biology has been re-integrated twice already, first by Darwin in 1859 and then during the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of the 1920s and 1930s. In both cases, the success of these syntheses rested in part on ignorance (emphasis mine). Charles Darwin could reasonably integrate biology in the 19th Century on a relatively elegant evolutionary foundation partly because a great deal was not yet known about cellular and biochemical machinery.” “Like Darwin’s synthesis, the form of the Modern Synthesis was shaped in part by ignorance of important features of life that were at the time unknown to science. Specifically, the molecular biology of the cell remained largely unknown.” “The view of life that most biologists had from 1935 to 1965 was highly simplified. Some of the assumptions at the foundation of the Modern Synthesis started to crumble in the 1970s. Common mid-20th Century assumptions about how cells, organisms, and species work have thus been undermined.”

– Michael R. Rose, Todd H. Oakley. 24 November 2007. The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis. Biology Direct, 2:30, 17 pages (published online).

Atheists who self-righteously and proudly rest in Darwin’s arms may be surprised at how quickly the increase in scientific knowledge is leading more and more honest scientists away from Darwin’s evolutionary theory. These scientists may not have an alternative theory worked out, but they are beginning to admit that Darwin was ignorant of the truth of cell complexity and systems biology, and the more scientists learn the more Darwinism becomes an impossibility.

Debunking Evolution is interesting because it reveals the difficulties being encountered by evolutionists in trying to describe and document how evolution works. This difficulty is leading more and more reputable scientists to Dissent against Darwinism.

Perhaps the apostle Paul’s claim about looking to nature for evidence of the existence of God can even keep up with the latest in scientific research:

 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”      (Romans 1:20)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s