Archive for June 21st, 2006

Respected Cornell Geneticist, John Sanford, Rejects Darwinism in His Recent Book: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Church of Darwin, Fin De Siecle, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 21 2006


Review & Comment By Bill Dembski on Uncommon Descent, Weblog of Bill Dembski & Friends, June 1, 2006

John Sanford writes: “In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter.

The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book…

Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

…. Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

…….To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors.

A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection.

Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious.

Click Here to Read Article Re: Book