What can be said of Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution in the dusk of 2009, fifty year after its original publication? Is it a terrible book?
It’s not, how shall I say this, an audience guaranteed to be sympathetic to a critique of Darwinism and its social impact, even one as thoroughly researched and accurately told as this.
David Berlinski is the William F. Buckley Jr. of Darwin doubters.
“Are scientists a cohort without a sociology — uniquely homogenous and unanimous, without factions or interests and impervious to peer pressures or the agendas of funding agencies?”
My letter responding to George Will’s “A Debate That Does Not End” appears in the July 18 print edition of Newsweek. George Will says the theory of intelligent design isn’t falsifiable—isn’t “a testable hypothesis.” Actually, particular design arguments are falsifiable. Design theorist Michael Behe, for instance, argues that we can detect design in the bacterial flagellum because the tiny motor needs all of its parts to function at all. That’s a problem for Darwinian evolution, which builds novel form one tiny functional mutation at a time. How to falsify Behe’s argument? Provide a detailed evolutionary pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s argument that such design is detectable would have been falsified. Read More ›