Darwinism seen as old-fashioned materialism
In a recent column, Marvin Olasky observes
New York Times columnist John Tierney recently offered a materialist version of "intelligent design": All of us are actually characters in a computer simulation devised by some technologically advanced future civilization.
Fanciful to the extreme, sure, but the growing number of such theories -- life comes from the past (Mars, when it was theoretically livable) or future (Tierney) -- is one more indication that Darwinism no longer satisfies. Reporters pretending to referee the origin debate used to have it easy: slick evolutionists vs. hick creationists, progress vs. regress. Now, Darwinism is looking fuddy-duddy, and sophisticated critiques of it are becoming more diverse.
I interviewed Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" and a new book, "The Edge of Evolution": The Search for the Limits of Darwinism." This Lehigh University biology professor points out that "Darwin and his contemporaries knew very little about the cell, which is the foundation of life. Microscopes of that era were too crude to see many critical details. So 19th-century scientists thought the cell was simple protoplasm, like a piece of microscopic Jell-O."
Read more here.
My sense is that Olasky is right. Darwinism is the last attempt to find a mechanism that explains everything in a world that is fundamentally governed by relationship. Quantum mechanics should have made that clear. Slow learners, these Darwinists.
Neurolaw? Your brain is your best defense ... literally!
Spirituality and the letters of the law - a secular Jew tries living by the Bible ...