A Bogey Moment with PZ Myers

It is interesting to see how evolutionists respond to failures of their theory. For all their talk of following the evidence and adjusting to new data, evolutionists find all kinds of ways to resist learning from their failures. Consider one of the major failures of evolution, its view of the very nature of biological change. Twentieth century evolutionary theory held that biological change is a rather simple process that is blind to the needs of the organism. As Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin confidant T. H. Huxley, put it, mutations "occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses."

Observations have long since been made to the contrary, but evolutionists cast it as the Lamarckian heresy. Researchers knew they should not suggest a correlation between environmental pressure and biological response, as the careers of those who did were ruined. An early example was Paul Kammerer, an Austrian biologist who experimented with toads.

Kammerer committed suicide after he was assailed as a fraud and ever since Lamarckian ideas could only be whispered in the hallways. Even today the Wikipedia entry begins:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the once popularly accepted, but since mainly discredited, idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.

Discredited? Only in the minds of evolutionists. Yes, what we now understand is far more intelligent and nuanced than anything Lamarck envisioned. And it won't likely produce large-scale, macro evolutionary change.

But the notion of environmental pressures causing biological change which can be passed on to subsequent generations--what Kammerer argued he had observed--certainly remains intact.

Not only is it not discredited, but since the days of Kammerer evidence has mounted for precisely this type of inheritance. In recent decades the abundant evidence for such inheritance has simply become undeniable--except, that is, to evolutionists. The whole topic has remained a third rail in evolution-dom. As one evolutionist recently admitted:

The really heretical thing to say is that the environment could be pushing the epigenetic information in a direction that is beneficial … that raises the hackles.

Epigenetics is the field of study that investigates the incredibly complex molecular mechanisms responsible for a wide range of responses, including Lamarckian inheritance. You can see a recent review here.

Nonetheless evolutionists continue to resist and deny the long-standing evidence. Sharon Begley's recent piece in Newsweek about Kammerer, for instance, sent evolutionist PZ Myers into a Bogey Moment as he declared:

Aaaargh! Epigenetics is not Lamarckism! ... I don't think academia has been neglecting this field because of dogma, either. Epigenetics is hot right now (and again, it's NOT Lamarckism!), ... We're all the evolution police. It isn't as sinister as Begley seems to imply: we just demand a little more evidence than speculation.

Not Lamarckism? Unbelievable. And I suppose Darwin didn't use any religious arguments either. And of course there is no dogma in any of this, certainly not. The ball bearings are rolling.

And the evolutionist's are merely seeking a little more evidence than speculation? You've got to be kidding me, an evolutionist downplaying speculation? That would be like Bozo downplaying unicycles. Should we laugh or cry at this hypocrisy. If this wasn't ruining science it would be hilarious.

Evolution dramatically failed in its view of biological change. The response of the evolutionists is even more telling.