Review - Darwin's House of Cards

Paul Henebury

Amazon Affiliate Link

The widespread public acceptance of biological evolution in Darwin’s day was probably a product of the simultaneous faith in Progress. Darwin’s theory was accepted as readily as it was because it shared in the general belief that things were getting better. It’s not that the organisms themselves were being swept along, but that European and then American intellectuals believed that everything was improving. (256)

This is the way Tom Bethell ends his entertaining book attacking the reigning scientistic consensus of evolution. Darwin’s House of Cards is a fully up-to-date survey of the mechanics and effects of evolutionary theory — a theory which Karl Popper concluded was “not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program” (14).

As to the general optimism which provided the conditions for the enthusiastic acceptance of Darwinism in the middle of the nineteenth century, Bethell writes,

[A]s I hope to show in the following chapters, the science of neo-Darwinism was poor all along, and supported by very few facts. I have become ever more convinced that, although Darwinism has been promoted as science, its unstated role has been to prop up a philosophy – the philosophy of materialism – and atheism along with it. (20)

Discussion

Scientists poke holes in natural selection

SI Filings

“[N]ew research, published in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, shows survival is a lot more complicated, and natural selection is neither clear-cut nor provable.” BPNews

Discussion

Texas adopts 'compromise' language on evolution

SI Filings

“The Texas State Board of Education has approved streamlined science standards for grades K-12 in a move that placated both conservative and progressive constituencies concerned with the teaching of evolution in Texas public schools.” BPNews

Discussion

Is a new fossil the tail of a feathered dinosaur?

SI Filings

“The researchers believe no bird would have such a long tail. But other studies, such as one published in EvoDevo in 2014, state that long-tailed birds with up to 23 vertebrae once existed.” WORLD

Discussion

Religion drives skepticism about evolution, but not climate change

SI Filings

“In a recent edition of the journal Environment and Behavior, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and her colleagues write that while religious views drive Americans’ rejection of evolution, skepticism about climate change is more a function of political views and lack of confidence in the work of scientists.” RNS

Discussion

Survey: Darwinism is to blame for eroding belief in human dignity

SI Filings

The survey “asked if ‘Evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other.’ Forty-three percent agreed, and 45 percent believe that ‘Evolution shows that human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals.’ The highest levels of support for the idea are found among self-identified atheists (69 percent), and 18 to 29 year olds (51 percent).”

Discussion

Twelve of the Most Annoying Arguments Used Against Biblical Creation, Part 2

Jeriah Shank

(Read Part 1.)

4. Arguing that “since scientists do not yet understand a natural phenomenon, God must have done it” is a fallacious “God of the gaps” argument.

Why It Sounds Good

This type of argument actually is a “God of the gaps” argument and sadly, in church history, many have used this approach.

Why It Is Annoying

There are two significant problems. First, creationists, as a whole, rarely argue this way any longer. Rather, creationists have increasingly been arguing for creation from what we do know about the universe. For example, in philosopher William Lane Craig’s1 version of the Kalam Cosmological argument,2 he states:

Discussion