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
The fact that evolution is less than a certainty is not an argument, it is an observation, a fact, a truth claim, a certainty. Evolutionists who refuse to admit as much have relegated themselves into the realm of non-reason. They sound like Bill Clinton trying to explain the meaning of "is."
I understand.
I agree with the first sentence and like 95+% of the rest of mankind, disagree with the second. I see evidence of the existence of God in history (in particular in the person of Jesus Christ), in nature, and in my personal experience. But that's a circular argument on your part anyway.
Consider this illustration: In the middle of a desert which everyone believes to have never been inhabited, a pair of archaeologists stumble across an ancient wall of worked stone. The first says, "This wall couldn't have been formed naturally, so someone must have built it."
The second shoots back, "But we all know that no one has ever lived out here, and therefore this can't really be a wall, but must be some natural formation."
"Natural formations don't have right angles," says the first. "Nor would one have minarets, windows, or writing on it as this wall does. It had to be designed--the odds of something like this coming about by random chance are mathematically impossible. The wall itself is proof that someone existed out here to build it."
"No it's not!" says the second. "We all know that nobody has ever been here before, and you can't prove that these supposed builders of yours exist; therefore, this 'wall' must be a bizarre accident of nature."
Who is right?
It is not necessary to have complete information on who created an artifact to know that it has been created by someone of intellegence. By the same token, it is not necessary to prove just who the Creator is to demonstrate that the theory that life is designed is superior to the theory that it is an accident.
Snicker. And they keep telling us we should get a little remedial science.
Actually, you seem to be misrepresenting mine.
It is some of the evolutionists here that are insisting that evolution has too been witnessed.
No one is saying that a cat has turned into a dog or should. No one but you, anyway.
I'm just correcting them.
In what way?
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.
Evolution of various fast-reproducing life forms is routinely demonstrated in vitro. The ordinary understanding is that when you know where little differences in a little time come from, you know whence big differences over longer time arise. The extraordinary claim is that some other mechanism aside from the accumulation of small changes is needed to account for large changes.
The burden of proof would thus seem to be on the ignorant luddites who claim that something else may be going on.
Still crazy after all these years?
Right. Whos to say "Genesis" is not a metaphor or a series of metaphors.. especially the Adam Eve story.. Seeing a metaphore as literal is like running to the window to see cats and dogs falling during a rain storm.. missing the whole copcept of its raining cats and dogs.
Various judeo-christian religions are good at that.. Since Jesus spoke mostly in parables(metaphors) what he was saying might have totally or partially been misunderstood too.
However current evolutionary theory stands completely against any God concept, unless "God" is "the force"... makeing God a fairy tale. When actually evolution is a fairy tale for ADULTS..
Here's a way you can prevent readers' eyes from glazing over when they read your posts:
Italicize the passages that you're quoting.
This is done with the <i> and </i> tags.
Another method of quoting, which I use for longer passages, is the <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags.Oh, BTW. You're wrong, wrong, wrong. :-)
*Cough*
You mean you didn't know the word theory had more than one definition?
Here's an article on the subject that I found on the fly. Enjoy, have a great day, and now I really am going to get back to work, as much as I love kicking around stuff like this on FR.
No, they are not. Micro evolution is kind into kind, dog into wolf, etc. Macro evolution is kind to different kind, like dog to elephant, etc. Micro is proven, macro is impossible.
You are one arrogant ..... To think you are in any position to criticize God's work. Can you "make" an eye that would see better? How do you know if our eyes are not perfect? Why are you so afraid of the truth?
For the lurkers more than for the impenetrables:
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.You can learn something reading the AiG site, but you have to be interested in psychiatry.
Nothing should be taught in "public" (government) schools. Government schools should be abolished.
1) Define species.
2) Why must a speciation event be observed in a lab as opposed to in the field?
Good arrticle, Lindykim. Thanks! BTTT!!!
LOL Well, no one is forcing you to read the thread. The choice is yours.
snip....we know without question that they exist, because their existence can be inferred from existing evidence, and from the fact that postulating their "existence" can be used to predict the outcome of experiments in different areas of science.
Another gigantic leap of faith! You're truly agile Warthog! This time you're literally straddling the chasm between two antithetical creation stories. You're doing so because you're unable to make sense of your 'evolution' theories based upon your "chance, accident, unintelligent, purposeless, & chaos" creation story, so you must "borrow" predictability and reliability, etc. from the Christian creation story.
Tell me Warthog, what do "unintelligent chemicals & other materials" wandering about in whatever existed prior to what exists now know about predictability???? And why would they care about creating such a thing???
Your responses need to be referenced in Your creation story.......Not mine.
You know the rules of creation science:
1. If it happens in the wild, it doesn't count unless it's reproduced in the lab.
2. If it happens in the lab, it's evidence of design, not evolution.
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.