Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Has Darwin Become Dogma?
To The Source ^ | Nov. 10, 2004 | Dr. Benjamin Wiker

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


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-446 next last
To: Casie
She said she walked to a beautiful sunny shore where a tall masted ship was docked, it's sails blowing in the breezes. She wanted to go aboard but she was told she could not board yet. She said she understood and was comforted and then she said she woke.

There was a young girl, whose heart was a frown
’cause she was crippled for life, And she couldn’t speak a sound
And she wished and prayed she could stop living,
So she decided to die

She drew her wheelchair to the edge of the shore
And to her legs she smiled you won’t hurt me no more
But then a sight she’d never seen made her jump and say
"Look a golden winged ship is passing my way"

And it really didn’t have to stop, it just kept on going...
And so castles made of sand slips into the sea, eventually

221 posted on 11/11/2004 9:59:35 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Take 100 fat overweight Americans (50 male and 50 female), and dump them off on a deserted isle in the Pacific. Don't go back for 200 years. When you finally go back...the descendents of the 100 islanders will not be fat. They will be sleek slim islanders.

Actually, reality has already proven you wrong.

Take a few hundred Polynesians. Make sure they are large enough, fat enough to survive a grueling, several thousand miles paddling through the Equitorial doldrums without eating. Let them cast their lot on the Hawaiian shores for nearly a thousand years.

The Hawaiians are some of the largest, fattest, most obese people on the planet, as are the Samoans for the same reason. Their genetics determined their lot.

222 posted on 11/11/2004 10:12:21 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lindykim

Darwin gave insight into the methods of God


223 posted on 11/11/2004 10:15:07 PM PST by Porterville (IT'S GOOD TO BE REPUBLICAN- ASK ME HOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
In this simple world of ours, you either change or die...its the one common denominator of life on earth.

(!) - Hey, makes my day. Going beddy bye now. Examine that agency of change. Tell me that no species go extinct and this has no ramifications upon the future speciation of this planet.

Can humans go extinct? Oh, that's right. Non-replicable, invalid theory, not science.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

224 posted on 11/11/2004 10:19:04 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Indeed. I enjoyed this article very much. Thank you so much for the ping!
225 posted on 11/11/2004 10:44:40 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: js1138; betty boop
Post-election greetings to you, js1138! Thank you for your reply.

I am always curious about what mechanism might enable the spiritual to interact with the physical. And give that it might, what purposte there is in defining the spiritual as non-physical.

Anything with properties that can be observed, and which participates in observable phenomena is physical, whether you admit it or not.

Seems like we've been done this road once or twice before. LOL!

To me, non-physical would entail that which is non-corporeal, non-spatial and non-temporal. A great many things fall in this category, including mathematical structures, emotions, pain, expectations to name a few.

Moreover, when I observe the unreasonable effectiveness of math, the geometry, the "lofty structure of all that there is" (as Einstein put it), the existence of successful communication in the universe and in biological systems - I am raptured in the Scriptures which say:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalms 19:1

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: - Romans 1:20

God is not corporeal, spatial or temporal - yet I see His trademark writ large in "all that there is".

226 posted on 11/11/2004 10:59:01 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you oh so very much for all of your kind words, my dear friend! And thanks for letting me know that y'all were talking about me.
227 posted on 11/11/2004 11:02:27 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Huh? Yes, everything is reducible in the sense that you're saying it (well, until you get to the Planck length, but that's another discussion), but not everything is reducible while still sustaining the life of an organism and the usefulness of the organ in question.

Never mind, it went completely over your head. Not a flame, just a fact. This response itself is so out of context that you clearly do not understand the terms of the discussion. Not only did you not refute my point, your response was not even relevant to my point.

The rest of your post is so obtusely written that, given the monstrous error exhibited in your first argument, it's not worth the effort it would take to try to pull it together into something coherant enough to debate.

Actually, it would seem you are in over your head, theoretically. My points are not new to veterans of these threads, and the mathematics have been well-vetted here before. Was my argument esoteric? Yes. Was it relevant? Very.

Let me rephrase, and let you work from there:

All biological systems are as a class reducible per mathematics. In the general case, there are an astronomical number of possible reductions and one can neither prove nor solve for the actual reduction that occurred in the system in practice. In other words, we can prove that a solution exists and also that proving the solution is generally impossible and finding a solution is generally quite intractable. Therefore, any argument premised on the notion of "irreducible complexity" is fallacious ipso facto.

This has been argued very successfully in the past against people who had more relevant mathematics background than you seem to possess. Hell, I even provided references for really basic math, something I do not normally do in these threads. I largely made the comment for your benefit and for the benefit of the discussion; it does no one's credibility any good to use arguments that are trivially falsifiable by someone competent in the art.

228 posted on 11/11/2004 11:19:30 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

BTW, you need to work on your understanding of "reduction". To say that something is "irreducible" in this context means that there is no valid path between two state configurations given some arbitrary system model, which can easily include being a viable organism as a requirement. Either you do not understand this, or you do not understand the mathematical consequences of this.


229 posted on 11/11/2004 11:28:37 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

you asked: why does Darwinism become dogma.......?"


The answer becomes obvious when we identify the politically powerful and influential ideologues for whom "godless" Darwinism serves as the 'force de jeur' against God of the Bible. These ideologues are Secular Humanists {Dawkins, for instance is a signatore of the Humanist Manifesto}and neo-Marxist socialists. These people virtually comprise the entirety of the Dem. Party, Hollywood, the ACLU, PFAW, George Soros, academia, mainstream media, the NEA, AFT, activist judges, radical homosexual organizations, PlannedParenthood, NARAL, pop culture entertainent {Disney's Epcott Center showcases/teaches the godless human secularist worldview}.


The over-arching worldview of the preceding ideologues is neo-pagan/socialism.


230 posted on 11/12/2004 2:22:41 AM PST by Lindykim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: chitownfreeper

I suspect that the "fear of looking bad" causes you to stand back in silence when you should be speaking up and to straddle fences rather than showing strength, determination, and conviction.


I'm not controlled by your fears, so don't try to chastize me because you are fearful.


231 posted on 11/12/2004 2:30:41 AM PST by Lindykim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Do you mean something comparable to your "case closed" dictum?

Try something better. By the way, the words were not meant as a "dictum", they were merely a wish.

It would be less than wise to suggest that evolution does not occur and has not occurred. But no one knows much of anything concerning what was referred to as the "beginnings". So all the musing over such things seems a little less than important.

Maybe Voltaire was right, "If there were no God, it would be necessary for man to invent one." I doubt it, but that's just me.

232 posted on 11/12/2004 3:21:18 AM PST by beyond the sea (ab9usa4uandme)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
In other words, according to this standard [evolution is not replicable by experiment, and so it remains a theory], nobody knows anything.

That's precisely the purpose of such a line of argument. Swamis, since the beginning of humanity, have done their best to convince the gullible that they (the gullible) don't and can't know anything. Which leaves the swami in the delightful position of being unchallengable when he declares "wisdom" to which he -- and he alone -- has access.

It's an old story, with many variations, and there is never a happy ending. In some of the latest versions, the next step, after persuading folks that their powers of reason are an illusion, is to take the followers to Jonestown, or invite them for a ride on a comet, etc. Welcome to Swami World. In this case, the entrance gate has "creationism" (or ID) signs plastered all over it. Just turn in your brain and go on in.

233 posted on 11/12/2004 4:02:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Casie

I am in full agreement with your assertion that faith and science need not be in opposition. I have said this repeatedly in these threads; Science in entirely neutral when it comes to God. I fail to see why someone's faith should be challenged by the big bang or evolution. These are simply the tools that God used to create the universe. To my way of looking at it, it's much more impressive to be able to create everything we see around us by just causing one "explosion" of space-time and designing laws of nature in such a way as to lead inevitably from that one event to everything we observe in the universe than it is for God to have to create each and every thing in the universe separately. Far from challenging my faith, the big bang and evolution reinforce it. While there may be modifications to these theories in the future, it still is awe-inspiring to think of a God who can design and do all of this in that way.


234 posted on 11/12/2004 5:26:17 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

God was so smart, He was able to create the universe with one big bang and allow his laws of physics and chemistry to design the specific structures over time, which we see now, so that we are unable to tell whether it was the laws of physics and chemistry or God that designed the universe we are in.

Pretty clever, eh?

To demand that God intervene continually in the universe dumbs down God to a level where he can't be God. Thus, the
misrepresentations of God's laws of physics and chemistry
by creationists or ID (same thing) is akin to blasphemy.


235 posted on 11/12/2004 5:43:11 AM PST by shubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Hopeless.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

You didn't win the argument.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Your decision not to answer my points as thoroughly as I answered yours weighs against you circumstantially.

You just think you did.

Unsubstantiated assertion. You are not privy to my mental states.

I never lie, btw.

If true, a very impressive statement.

Accusing someone of lying should be backed up by some facts.

(1) I didn't accuse you of lying. Lying is making untrue statements with intent to deceive, which I don't think you did. What I do think is that you assumed Darwinism preceded and inspired genetic research and you made a sweeping and erroneous statement based on your false assumption. You did not know that you were quite wrong, therefore you did not intentionally deceive, or lie to, anyone.

(2) However, the fact is you said that genetics had its foundations in Darwinism. In point of historical fact, it did not. It was developed independently of Darwinism, did not rely on Darwin's theories in any way and was actually ignored completely by two generations of Darwinists.

236 posted on 11/12/2004 5:43:51 AM PST by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: stremba

The assumption by creationists that science must be wrong, because there understanding of it does not comport with what they misinterpret the Bible to say is the problem.


237 posted on 11/12/2004 5:45:47 AM PST by shubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

You did call me a liar. You directly said I did not have a Dr. in Min, which I do.

DNA was the essential genetic discovery, which built upon the foundation of Darwin. (Darwinism is not a real thing, it is used instead of Theory of Evolution by creationists)
Darwin predicted Mendel's discovery too. You admitted yourself Darwin did not know about it. Yet, his papers recognize the need for transmission of inheritence in the manner Mendel described.

Should you want any more education of Biology, please post to me privately with your email and I will send you a list of educational sites to study.


238 posted on 11/12/2004 5:51:52 AM PST by shubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: shubi
You directly said I did not have a Dr. in Min, which I do.

No I did not. I never said anything of the kind.

What I said was that a Dr. in Min. is not the same as a PhD in Scriptural Theology - which is the undeniable truth. I further said that you should not pretend that a Dr. in Min. academically qualifies you as an authority on Scripture, because it doesn't.

And you can't deny that you wrote as if a Dr. in Min. qualified you to authoritatively judge my hermeneutic approach to Genesis. Sorry, but you're not qualified to do so - all you can offer is an amateur's opinion on Scriptural Theology. Frankly, given your comments on this thread, I wonder if you can even read Hebrew.

It's ironic that you are so worked up about thinking that you were called a liar that you've put words in my mouth. I feel like a kettle.

239 posted on 11/12/2004 6:08:40 AM PST by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Dataman

Yes we get angry when you persist in using incorrect definitions. A theory in science is not just a guess. It is a coherent set of statements that explains a wide range of observations. But you already knew that, didn't you?


240 posted on 11/12/2004 6:29:45 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-446 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson