Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Has Darwin Become Dogma?
500 years ago science revolted against theological dogma as the source of all knowledge. Today it is science that is trying to assume the mantle of the sole arbiter of truth. On magazine covers such as this month's National Geographic and in legal battles across the country, the scientific community has become absolute in its belief that evolution will answer all of the questions regarding our beginnings. They have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions this belief is considered a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence.
November 11, 2004
Dear Concerned Citizen, by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century. Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?" It's that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So, what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the next page and we find our answer, a resounding 'NO' printed in a font a third of the page high. But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the apparently foolish question 'Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about. The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are told, are 'fundamentalist Christians','ultraorthodox Jews', and 'Islamic creationists', all of whom view evolution as a threat to their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the ones ruffling National Geographics feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, 'Other' people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
"Why are there so many antievolutionists?' they ask impatiently. Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question 'Was Darwin Wrong?' the proper answer is not a clamorous 'NO' but a well-informed 'Yes and No'. While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: 'despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support." Are these the words of a 'fundamentalist Christian', 'ultraorthodox Jew', or an 'Islamic creationist'? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully insufficient to perform the amazing feats promised in the title of Darwins great work of producing new species.
But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among individuals are 'selected' by nature because they make the individual more 'fit' to survive. Those more 'fit' characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution will have produced an entirely new species.
So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire diversity of all living things could be produced.
That was the grand promise of Darwins theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders contend that, "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." Darwins theory is in crisis, they argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its promise so grand; how new species arise.
I quote the words of Brian Goodwin, Mae-Wan Ho, and Peter Saunders because they represent the growing number of scientific dissenters from orthodox Darwinism (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism). National Geographic makes no mention of them. That would make the quick and confident 'No' into a rather sheepish "well, sort of".
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwins theory. One suspects reading between the lines that the real reason that National Geographic suddenly 'doth protest too much' against doubters of Darwinism, is that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has done so much to bring the scientific and philosophical problems with evolutionary theory into the public spotlight. They cannot draw attention to the ID movement, however, or people might become more informed about the difficulties that beset Darwinism. So, we return to the question, 'Was Darwin Wrong?" National Geographic says "NO". But readers who aren't satisfied with such simple answers should read the following books.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box
Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots
John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism
Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism Scientific Difficulties with Darwinism
The origin of life: Darwin conjectured that all life was descended from a single, simple form. But where did the first living thing come from? In a now famous private letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin offered a conjecture: if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, then we could explain the origin of life as a lucky chemical reaction. Against this hope, origin of life researchers have fallen on hard times. While there were some initial victories in the laboratory, generating small amounts of pre-biological molecules, scientists are unable to generate anything more biologically interesting unless they artificially rig their experiments in ways that contradict the actual conditions of early Earth.
The problem is so acute that many origin of life scientists have given up, and are now turning their efforts to trying to discover ways that complex, life-seeding molecules may have been delivered from space. Alas, the problems facing such efforts are just as severe.
The fossil record: According to Darwin, evolution had to occur very slowly, through slight changes not by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, the fossil record does not support such gradual transformation. Instead, species seem to appear quite suddenly, fully formed, stay the same for millions of years, and then just as suddenly disappear. The most significant problem for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion, where quite suddenly, about 550,000,000 years ago, all the major phyla of the animal kingdom appear in the fossil record.
The Truth About Inherit the Wind "Of course, such a simple choice between bigotry and enlightenment is central to the contemporary liberal vision of which Inherit the Wind is a typical expression. But while it stands nominally for tolerance, latitude, and freedom of thought, the play is full of the self- righteous certainty that it deplores in the fundamentalist camp. Some critics have detected the play's sanctimonious tone-"bigotry in reverse," as Andrew Sarris called it-even while appreciating its dramatic quality and well-written leading roles. The play reveals a great deal about a mentality that demands open-mindedness and excoriates dogmatism, only to advance its own certainties more insistently-that promotes tolerance and intellectual integrity but stoops to vilifying the opposition, falsifying reality, and distorting history in the service of its agenda.
In fact, a more historically accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial than Inherit the Wind might have been far richer and more interesting-and might also have given its audiences a genuine dramatic tragedy to watch. It would not have sent its audience home full of moral superiority and happy thoughts about the march of progress. The truth is not that Bryan was wrong about the dangers of the philosophical materialism that Darwinism presupposes but that he was right, not that he was a once great man disfigured by fear of the future but that he was one of the few to see where a future devoid of the transcendent would lead. The antievolutionist crusade to control what is taught in the schools may not have been the answer, and Bryan's own approach may have been too narrow. But the real tragedy lies in the losing fight that he and others like him waged against a modernity increasingly deprived of spiritual foundations." Carol Inannone First Things
The Debate Rages On Although nearly 100 years have passed since the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, the debate rages on. In Grantsburg, Wisconsin a firestorm of critique was leveled against the school board this month for revising its science curriculum to include more than one model/theory of origin in the districts science curriculum. Current Wisconsin state law mandates that evolution be taught but the school board viewed the law as too restrictive.
Similar skirmishes are being fought around the country. Ever since the Scopes Trial, the ACLU has been an active player, bringing lawsuits against any group who questions the Darwin dogma in school curriculum. After a group of parents in Cobb County Georgia complained about the exclusive presentation of evolution as the sole theory of origin in three biology textbooks in 2002, stickers were placed in the science texts intended to remind students to keep an open mind. Now the ACLU is representing another group of parents in a lawsuit against that school district claiming that the stickers promote the teaching of creationism and discriminate against particular religions.
The Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania recently voted to include the theory of 'intelligent design' and other alternative theories to evolution in their science curriculum. Similar action was taken by the Ohio board of education this spring when they narrowly approved a similar plan. Critics charge it risks a return to teaching creationism.
To say that evolution has not answered all the scientific questions regarding our origins does not suggest you have to teach creationism in schools as a scientific theory. What should be taught is an honest assessment of what science does and does not know regarding our beginnings. The questions regarding our origins are too big for science alone to answer. People of faith should not allow themselves to be relegated to an anti-science position for questioning Darwin. Questioning the validity of theories is what science is supposed to do.
Benjamin Wiker Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA). He is now a Lecturer in Theology and Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville (OH), and a full-time, free-lance writer. Dr. Wiker writes regularly for a variety of journals, including Catholic World Report, New Oxford Review, Crisis Magazine, and First Things, and is a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Dr. Wiker just released a new book called Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius). His first book, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, was released in the spring of 2002 (InterVarsity Press). He is writing another book on Intelligent Design for InterVarsity Press called The Meaning-full Universe.
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org. © Copyright 2004 - tothesource
Science tests hypotheses.
Peer review is an important part of the process to Theory.
You should take a remedial science course somewhere.
micro and macro evolution are the same process.
Dataman says that the existence of music is just a guess or an assumption.
I suppose they're really wasting their time in college with that Music Theory stuff.
Boy, you really answered my question good.
It isn't so... But believe what you want... After all believers in Iron age fairy tales will believe... anything!
I would quote to you Louis Pasteur, a fervent Catholic:
"I leave my faith at the door of my lab..."
There is absolutely no comparison between Jesus and Darwin
Was not Darwin created by God?
Is not Jesus God's Son?
Does not the Trinity include Jesus?
Did not God create Darwin and every other man in His image?
There are many other design defects in man besides the vitamin C thing. Try looking at the design of the human eye. It is badly engineered.
Probably... And to paraphrase Galileo said "and still, it is true..."
Given that I leave Iron age fairy tales to children, I'll go to worthier threads!
Your correction won't stop him from doing it again tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that.... ;)
No one is there in the intergalactic void. No readings of its vacuum exist. Obviously there can be no such thing as a science of intergalactic astronomy or physics. Obviously there is no gravity in this void, since you have no direct readings of it to offer as evidence. It is obvious that there is only microgravity here on earth, since that is the only gravity you can take readings on in present time, and tangibly detect with your naked senses. All else is airy, left-wing conjecture.
...
Science operates almost exclusively on inductive reasoning, which is inherently fragile--and therefore, easy for non-scientists to get inappropriately exercised about--to draw conclusions. Until you acknowledge that, these wailings are going to, quite properly, drop on deaf ears, in scientific circles.
Creationism is a religious belief... It shouldn't be taught in public schools!
No, no, who cares, unknowable...
Next batch of questions?
If you have no shame, you never have to apologize for your mistakes. Or quit making them.
Lying for the lord is no business for the open minded.
If you're sure of that, then state it and how it might be falsified.
I read the Scripture as speaking to "all that there is", that God is the only pre-existing, uncaused cause of the beginning of all spiritual realms, geometries (dimensions), space/time in this universe, etc.
The number of Days however reconciles quite nicely with relativity for this universe. Fifteen billion years (roughly) at our space/time coordinates in this four dimension block (3 spatial, 1 temporal) is equal to 6 equivalent solar "days" from the space/time coordinates of the inception of this universe.
I have a Dr. in Ministry. Your interpretation of Genesis is faulty.
A degree in Ministry is not equivalent to a degree in Scriptural Theology and you know it.
However, mutations have been experimented with in bacteria and virae with results that are expected from the Theory.
Creating a microevolutionary mutation in a lab does not prove macroevolution, sorry. And the plural of virus is viri.
If the Theory had been found to be incorrect, science would drop it.
The "Theory" (how tellingly you capitalize it) turned out to be quite incorrect in explaining Darwin's own finches.
Now we move on to shubi's true feelings with two silly ad hominem attacks in one paragraph.
You creationuts always confuse scientific definitions to make your specious arguments. Give it up. We who understand science won't fall for it, but you might fool some Kerry voters
Ah yes. Those who disagree with shubi are definitionally insane and are "Kerry voters". Clearly someone with a very strong case on the evidence wouldn't need to make comments like this, shubi. That you have is fascinating.
Newtonian mechanics are still true, except at the subatomic level. Phlogiston is pre-science.
(1) The fact is that the scientific community clung to Newtonian mechanics for decades after it was clear that they were not sufficiently explanatory. Various stopgap techniques were applied to calculate away the inconsistencies until quantum mechanics was finally embraced.
(2) Well-regarded scientists like Stahl and Priestley steafastly defended phlogiston theory until Lavoisier finally provided definitive proof of the chemistry of combustion. If we adopted your definition of "science", then Newton would be "pre-science".
The above is simply false. I don't have the time to explain why you are totally wrong. However, genetics was predicted by Darwin in his Theory. Genetics forms the modern Theory of Evolution with Darwin's principles as a foundation.
Now you are just making stuff up. Gregor Mendel established genetics through experimentation in the 1850s while Darwin was still working on his Origin of Species. Far from being "founded" on Darwin's principles, genetics was developed independently of Darwin AND from 1866 to 1900 Darwinists completely ignored Mendel's research. A more correct description of reality is that Darwinists searched for decades to find a mechanism to explain "natural selection" and found that genetics might fit the bill.
Genetics, as a hard science, owes nothing to Darwinism.
Men wrote Scriptures.
So your position is that men and not God are the author of Holy Scripture?
That is not what the Bible says. I am surprised you would go to heresy to support your erroneous anti-scientific position.
I don't think a person who believes the Scriptures are manmade should accuse others of heresy. And my Bible says that only a fool is capable of saying in his heart that there is no God. My Bible also says: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". If something is clearly seen by empirical evidence, as St. Paul asserts, then it is not a matter of faith but of knowledge.
You think Darwin didn't exist?
I said nothing of the kind. You are really reaching, shubi.
This has been really disedifying. Let me know when you want to have a discussion, instead of just calling people names and pretending to credentials you don't have.
Then conversely, all the problems with "Intellegent Design" that are raised by scientists should be given fair voice as well. The first among these problems will be "there is no evidence of a God/creator".
And about the time that little Johnny comes home quoting the teacher saying "there is no God", that stuff will end.
Little Johnny may, or may not, reject God right then and there.
Maybe then Creationists will figure out that it's a better idea to just say that Genesis is not a scientific text and there are no real conflicts between it and science.
As is too often the case, Vade, you misrepresent my position. It is some of the evolutionists here that are insisting that evolution has too been witnessed. I'm just correcting them.
There's nothing wrong with treating evolution within the framework of a historical science, like archaeology. However, the instant you agree that macro-evolution cannot be replicated in the lab any more than Alexander's victories over the Persians, you lose the right to claim that Darwinian evolution is as much a "fact" as gravity and to mock those who disagree with your interpretations of the data as flat-earthers.
The problem you have is that none of the evidence is following the patterns that it should have if Darwinism were true. The fossil record does not show gradual change over time, as the article above points out, and everyone acknowledges this except for some of the less-informed evos--if the fossil record didn't have to be explained away, your side would never have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Punk-eek is not supported by what we know of genetics and biology, but gradualism is disproved by the fossil record; you have a problem here that needs to be publicly acknowledged instead of swept under the rug of your dogma. By the same token, genetic similarities are not following the pattern we would expect from the fossil record, abiogenesis has been so shot down by the facts that many of you now try to claim that it has nothing to do with evolution, and so on.
When you are ready to seriously discuss the issues instead of trying to shout down the opposition with mockery, we'll be happy to talk. But as long as you continue to act like religious fanatics whose prime tenant has been threatened (by science, no less), we're going to continue to call you on it.
And on that note, I'd better get back to work. I'm behind as it is. Good day to everyone!
How many does that make -- 1720?
These Discovery Institute op-eds just write themselves nowadays, don't they?The DI must have a bot that compiles a new op-ed from their Big-Database-o-Talking-Points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.