Another ex-dhimmi for Darwin ...
Heck, the ex-dhimmis for Darwin movement has DOUBLED in size already!
I just received this message from Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design:
There was a time when I would half-heartedly join in the chorus that praises Darwin as a great scientist, even though some of his ideas were mistaken. Now, when I look for Darwin's positive contributions to biology, I see only that he made a persuasive case that something analogous to artificial selection operates in natural populations (a case also made by others, including A.R. Wallace). That and a few minor studies on barnacles, orchids, and such. But natural selection has never been shown to accomplish anything more than its artificial counterpart -- which is to say minor changes within existing species.
All of Darwin's Big Ideas -- universal common ancestry, the origin of species by natural selection, inheritance by pangenesis -- are dead or dying. The last (pangenesis) has been disproved as decisively as any scientific hypothesis can be disproved; the second (speciation by natural selection) has never been observed, and all attempts to demonstrate it have failed; and the first (universal common ancestry, or UCA) has serious and growing problems with the evidence.
Darwin's principal "evidence" for UCA was anatomical homology. Yet the scientists who first observed homology attributed it to common design, and Darwin's followers merely turned it into a circular argument (similarity due to common ancestry is due to common ancestry). But if homology were solid evidence FOR common ancestry then homoplasy (=similarity NOT due to common ancestry) would be solid evidence AGAINST it. And despite their incessant boast that UCA is a "fact" beyond dispute, modern Darwinists have had to invoke increasingly esoteric molecular evidence to "prove" it – while they ignore the growing molecular evidence against it.
No, Darwin was not a great biologist, any more than Marx was a great economist. Darwin was wrong in everything that really mattered, and blind devotion to his mistaken ideas by his philosophically driven followers may turn out to be the most destructive science stopper in history.
I come to bury Darwin, not to praise him; the evil that he did lives after him...
Note: The point isn't that one used to be a Darwin fanatic and now is not. I was never a Darwin fanatic. But I was willing to play the social ambulance - pretending that Darwin wasn't a racist or that the eugenics movement and later the Holocaust had nothing whatever to do with the ideas advanced as science by his supporters. I'm not doing that any more just to be nice.
You know how the CIA liked to say about certain vicious dictators: "He's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard?" Well, after reading John West's Darwin Day in America, I realized: That old man was a bastard, but he isn't MY old man, so I don't owe him or his anything. I can just call the story like I see it from now on.