Q. You're not even a scientist, merely a journalist.
What qualifies you to challenge the work of dozens of professional
scientists of experience, intelligence and integrity?
A. There are three levels of the rules of evidence, each more rigorous than
the last. They are the journalistic level, the legal or forensic level,
and the scientific level.
The journalistic level demands that the reporter find and interview
eyewitnesses, that he/she find more than one independent witness and that the
story be supported independently wherever possible by documents or other
tangible evidence. Finally, the journalist must be able to satisfy his
editor that the evidence obtained is correct and that it is reasonable to base
the story on it.
Kharkov city. Amazing hotel kharkov online booking. Kharkov hotels.
The forensic level is more demanding since the accused person, if
convicted, may incur some penalty such as imprisonment or a fine. Hence
the rules of journalistic evidence apply but there are some extra requirements.
The evidence produced must lead in an unbroken chain from the offence to the
accused. Direct evidence is given the most weight, circumstantial evidence
far less weight. Eyewitness accounts are important but regarded as
fallible and tangible evidence given far more weight. Finally, an advocate
must be able to satisfy a judge and jury that the evidence shows that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the most important cases the
case must be made beyond even the shadow of a doubt.
The scientific level is the most demanding of all. All the rules of
forensic evidence apply but with more stringent additions. The scientist
must design an experiment to test his conclusions in the laboratory. And
ultimately he or she must be able to convince their fellow scientists of the
validity of their results by running the gauntlet of peer-review.
If I were setting out to criticise Darwinism on scientific grounds,
then it would be legitimate to object that I am not a professional scientist. If
I were setting out to criticise Darwinism on forensic grounds, then again it
would be legitimate to object. But the basis of my criticism is that of
journalistic investigation -- and the disturbing thing is that Darwinism doesn't
even stand up to this, the most elementary form of scrutiny. Darwinism, as
told by Darwinists, is a story that doesn't add up.
Nor am I the first journalist to notice the many discrepancies and
comment publicly on them.
Gordon Rattray Taylor wrote The Great Evolution Mystery in 1983 and Arthur
Koestler wrote The ghost in the machine as long ago as 1967.
Lawyers, too, have criticised Darwinism, notably Norman Macbeth in Darwin
retried and, more recently, Phillip Johnson in Darwin on trial
The number of scientists who have seriously criticised Darwinism in print is
growing all the time. Most notably in recent years molecular biologist,
Michael Denton (Evolution: a theory in crisis) biologist Rupert Sheldrake
(A new science of life) and molecular biologist Michael Behe (Darwin's
black box). Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould has famously criticised the
central feature of Darwinist thinking, gradualism, in many books.
