* RSR Presents Dobzhansky 40 Years Later: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss a paper in the latest journal edition of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Forty years ago the scientist credited with developing the reigning paradigm of neo-Darwinism, Theodosius Dobzhansky, published his iconic article with the famed title, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. The decades since have seen his three predictions fail: regarding genetics; the role evolution would play in biological science; and, of all things, a prediction about one particular Arab sheik whom Dobzhansky identified by name!
For today's show we recommend:
The Real Science Radio Collection: 2006 - 2011
* To Get Bob's Paper, Just Click On Over to the CRSQ: The Creation Research Society just published Bob Enyart's paper, Dobzhansky -- Forty Years Later Nothing Makes Sense (or in pdf), on the 40th anniversary of the most popular evolution article ever written. And if serious science writing doesn't scare you away, then Fred and Bob highly recommend that you become a member of the CRS or just subscribe to the Quarterly! You'll get triple-bang for your buck! It would be a few minutes and dollars wisely invested, and in doing so, you will encourage their ongoing creation research efforts, enjoy creation-based peer-reviewed journal papers (like Bob's), and you'll help Real Sciece Radio accomplish one of our goals, which is to be a blessing to creationists everywhere!
* Bob's CRSQ Publications:
- On the Caution about the 360-Day Year
- RSR's GEE: Geo Earth Explorer Proposal (also appeared on Nat'l Geographic's website)
- Dobzhansky -- Forty Years Later Nothing Makes Sense
In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.
While the great majority biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. "Evolution" would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.
* A U.S. National Academy of Sciences Member Agrees: The late Dr. Philip Skell has remarked that biology papers typically include an obligatory evolutionary gloss that adds nothing to and has nothing to do with the actual published research. See another of this scientist's observations made when the Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin interviewed Skell, and as reported in Enyart's Dobzhansky paper:
Just as the Marxists spent decades inventing economic interpretations of everything, so too evolutionists endeavor to create Darwinian explanations for everything (Prager, 2012), except for Darwinism itself, which explanation would be survival of the politically correct. Ignoring Darwinian narratives of alleged deep time and considering instead actual biological discoveries, such as those that earn Nobel Prizes, evolution is surprisingly irrelevant according to dozens of the world’s leading scientists, as assessed by a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
Philip Skell reports that he “asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No” (Skell, 2005, p. 10). Decades worth of Nobel Prizes awarded for discoveries in the life sciences falsify Dobzhansky’s third and key expectation, that nothing in biology would make sense apart from evolution. Those awards track worldwide progress in biology and therefore should be able to catalog amazing evolution-based discoveries. However, the late Pennsylvania State University professor Dr. Skell summed up the actual history of the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine. I decided to explore this further by examining the 100 Nobel Prizes in biology-related areas over the last century. And I could not find among them any that had been awarded the Nobel Prize for their breakthrough discoveries that I could recognize depended upon Darwinian concepts to design the experimental work on which their discoveries were based. … So here again, the Darwinian theory did not provide the guidance that was necessary for those great breakthrough discoveries (ID the Future, 2007).
Today’s Resources: Have you browsed through the Science Department in our KGOV Store? You may just love the superb resources there! Also, you can order any of our BEL and 3rd-party resources by calling us at 1-800-8Enyart.
* RSR's Popular "List" Shows 2013 Schedule:
January: List of Not So Old Things
March: List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
May: List of Peer-reviewed Dino Soft Tissue Papers
July: List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections
Aug: List of Scholars Doubting Darwin and the Big Bang
Sept: List of the Fine Tuning of Creation
Oct: List of Carbon 14 Where it Shouldn't Be
Nov: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit
Another? If you have a suggestion for another RSR LIST show, please forward it to Bob@RealScienceRadio.com.