Evolution Icon Evolution

Video: Stephen Meyer on How Charles Marshall, in Defending Darwinism, Was Forced to Violate a Key Scientific Tenet

As ENV pointed out earlier this morning, in the admitted understanding of the National Academy of Sciences, Darwinian evolution is not really a scientific conclusion so much as a premise, a framework, a paradigm for considering the evidence of nature. It provides scientists with a filter for screening out inadmissible answers to questions about life’s history. It thus creates a realm of forbidden science.

For a clear illustration of how this works you couldn’t do better than Charles Marshall’s review of Darwin’s Doubt in Science. As Stephen Meyer points out in a video conversation about the critical response to his book, Dr. Marshall was forced by the Darwinian framework to violate a key scientific tenet, namely that nature works today as it did in the past.

Back then, gene regulatory networks were easier to rewire. Nowadays, not so much. What evidence is there for such an assertion? None. Why think it at all? Because the paradigm compels it. Watch the whole thing.

I’m on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.

David Klinghoffer

Senior Fellow and Editor, Evolution News
David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and the editor of Evolution News & Science Today, the daily voice of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, reporting on intelligent design, evolution, and the intersection of science and culture. Klinghoffer is also the author of six books, a former senior editor and literary editor at National Review magazine, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Commentary, and other publications. Born in Santa Monica, California, he graduated from Brown University in 1987 with an A.B. magna cum laude in comparative literature and religious studies. David lives near Seattle, Washington, with his wife and children.



Darwin's DoubtFilms and VideoMeyer's ResponsesNews and EventsResponse to Criticism