The broken mechanics of theistic evolution

- According to common defintion, theistic evolutionists are people who accept evolution as the 'mechanism' by which God created.

- The problem with this is that the 'mechanism' (natural selection) doesn't work. Critics of evolutionary theory have shown this over and over. (They've certainly convinced me.) So here we have Christians believing in a 'mechanism' that doesn't work. So what kind of a god uses a mechanism that doesn't work?

- I've gathered some quotes from evolutionists who claim NS doesn't work. (These come mainly from an article by Suzan Mazur; Altenberg! The Woodstock of evolution?)

Quotes;

A. 'Stanley Salthe, for instance, said he can’t get published in the mainstream media for his views, e.g.:
"Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated... the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations.... Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

B. 'Jerry Fodor, another critic of natural selection argues “biologists increasingly see the central story of Darwin as wrong in a way that can’t be repaired.” His article “Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings” in the London Review of Books, in which he laid out his criticisms of natural selection, caused such a stormy aftermath that he joked to Mazur that he has taken refuge in the Witness Protection Program. He was apparently reluctant to talk to Mazur after being so besieged. “You can’t put this stuff in the press because it’s an attack on the theory of natural selection,” he told Mazur, even though he is convinced “99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is.” He’s not giving up on the grand evolutionary story – he is just convinced that whatever new mechanism emerges to explain evolution, it will not be selectionist.'
- He's not going to give up on evolution even though he admits the theory doesn't work; doesn't explain anything. That speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned.

C. "It’s not Yasgur’s Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate [sic] “other” new phenomena.'' - Mazur

- From what I can gather theistic evolutionists don't even particularly care if this 'mechanism' doesn't work. They're more interested in going along to get along; and they have an intense fear of being ridiculed by their non-Christian colleagues, should they say anything that's not status quo. (Not that they'll admit it.)

- Isn't mechanism a strange word for a materialist to use? Mechanism means machine; and aren't the descendents of Hume supposed to deny the machine or design argument? In my opinion, they have no right to reject the design argument if they're going to use words like mechanism.

Notes;
1. Revolt in the Darwin Camp; Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/07/2008
- March 7, 2008 — With minor skirmishes, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (natural selection acting on random genetic mutations) has held sway in evolutionary theory since the 1930s. Now, discontent with the pre-eminence of natural selection is leading to a major skirmish between evolutionists to be fought at a conference this summer.
2. "A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising. - mazur
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/at_scoop_freelance_reporter_su.html
3. The meeting seems largely to have come about because of Jerry Fodor's article Why Pigs Don't Have Wings.
In an act of near-heresy, Fodor wrote:
"In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.