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
Coming from someone who tries to enforce his definition of scientific "theory", that's pretty funny. There was a very comprehensive description of scientific "theory" vs. "law" in a Crevo thread last week. I'm too lazy to repost it here. You can look it up.
In the mean time, grace me by being the first Creationist to answer my question about why they teach music "theory" in college? Is there some question about whether music exists? Do you have any personal doubts about the existence of music?
Words mean things. You are the one who's played games with them and I caught you red handed so you're mad.
No, it's a distinction made by trained, published scientists, the fact that it sends you into fits notwithstanding.
Tell you what, when you manage to "evolve" a dog into something non-canine, let me know. It is not up to us to prove a negative.
And for the record, not all "creation scientists," as you broadly use the term to apply to everyone who disbelieves Darwinism, subscribe to a young earth model. The fact that you guys keep having to fall back on that false dichotomy demonstrates the weakness of your positive proof for Darwinism.
Well, when you Creationists get your act together on what you believe. And get all your evidence lined up. Get back with me.
Until then, just attacking a science that you don't like with nothing to replace it just won't cut it.
Creation Science will not be able to "prove" the existence of God, which is obviously what many religious people are looking for. So stop looking for such a proof. You can take solace in the fact that science also cannot dis-prove God. And for the most part it doesn't try until Creationists provoke this silly Crevo fight.
It is not a prediction of the theory that some particular cat will turn into a dog over the course of an hour or two in a laboratory while Buggman stands around impatiently looking at his watch. Given how long Buggman has been on these threads, one has to wonder why he is still pretending out loud to wonder why such has never been observed.
At any rate, if such an event ever were observed, it would be proof that the origin of species must be something quite different from what Darwin said it is. It would be a falsification, not a proof, of evolution.
However, since that doesn't happen, there is no difficulty.
It's simple, Mr. Narb. "Theory," has 4 meanings. When applied to music, it means
| A set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art or discipline. |
| An assumption or guess. |
Yes, words mean things. Choose them carefully so they don't come back to haunt you.
Have you read the Bible? It has quite a bit of biology and scientific truths in it. For example, God describes springs at the bottom of the ocean. Guess what, springs were discovered at the bottom of the ocean within the past few years. Believe it to be symbolic, that's your choice, but don't spew on other's belief.
Who appointed you god of word meanings?
For shame, Retro. I think we all wonder why you dozen or so evos cling to your devastated worldview to the point that truth is suppressed because it might be religious. I believe that is classified as paranoia.
There is absolutely no comparison between Jesus and Darwin. Not surprising a comment from someone who thinks he/she knows that we are somehow flawed and uses Vitamin C to dispute an entire belief. Blowing in the wind........
I have read it. Genesis blows it completely on the origins of this universe. The order is totally out of wack.
wack = whack SIGH!
| When applied to evolution, it means An assumption or guess. |
American Heritage dictionary, meaning #4.
That's another thing I can appreciate about the FR evolutionists. They ask a question, dare you to answer it and then get all huffy when you do. I think that is very enlightend, scientific, reasonable, intellectual, etc. etc....
Loose vacuum tubes?
Did you see the "list-o-links" in post 66? Well worth you time to study them. :-)
LOL! :-)
Temporary core dump. hehe
You can always blow up my irony meter. Off to Wal-Mart for another!
I'm going to waste my time and actually check that out. Somehow I have some serious doubts about either the context of your citation, or its actual existence.
1. God would not make mistakes in design, as the designer of your washing machine did. Why do we need vitamin C to survive? What does the appendix do and why does its removal when infected not harm us, but the infection does?
No need to dip into arcana. Why not ask: why can't we fly? Why do we have to eat or sleep?
What you perceive as a "mistake" may not actually be one.
(LOL-the point is we have inherited from the primate line an absence of the gene that produces vitamin C. It is apparent from studying comparative genetics that other animals have such a gene, but it was dropped from primates. Until you can answer why God would have dropped such an essential gene, your argument is very very weak.)
No, intelligent design is simply superstition and faulty theology disguised as science.
Calling ideas names doesn't invalidate them. I'll add that you don't seem to understand what the word "superstition" means and that you're not well-versed enough in theology to determine what in the discipline is "faulty".
(I have a Dr. in Ministry. Your interpretation of Genesis is faulty. I know superstition when I see it.)
Science is not all about experimentation. It is collection and analysis of data, too.
Absolutely. Once data is collected and verified it can be used to construct a theory which can then be tested. Observation is a necessary precondition to experimentation and an essential part of the scientific method.
(The theory had been continually tested over 150 years. It has been predictive of genetics and molecular biology. It has never been contradicted. Experimentation is not necessary in all areas. However, mutations have been experimented with in bacteria and virae with results that
are expected from the Theory. So, you are just plain wrong.
Your understanding of science is clouded by your zeal to believe wrong-headed theology.)
Over the last 150 years, millions of data points have been collected, not one of them contradicting Darwin's Hypothesis,
That's simply incorrect.
(No its not. If the Theory had been found to be incorrect, science would drop it. This is unlike your superstitious
holdings that you will never drop, despite all evidence to the contrary.)
which elevates the hypothesis to a Theory (a Theory is a fact of science).
Incorrect again. A theory is not a "fact of science" - it is the working model under which scientific inquiry operates.
(Nope, that is more a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a working model. 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 who don't seem to rely on facts, either.)
If any contradiction of any element of the Theory or the Theory as a whole is obtained, science would immediately drop it.
That's an extremely naive statement. The scientific community was so dedicated to Newtonian mechanics that for decades it refused to consider that Newton's model might not subsume all mechanics. Phlogiston theory is another paradigm that preoccupied chemists for more than a century.
(Newtonian mechanics are still true, except at the subatomic level. Phlogiston is pre-science.)
Historically, scientific theories hang on as ruling paradigms for quite a long time after they should have been discarded.
(You can give no example of this. You just think you can.)
However, Darwin explains how biology has worked and is working today. It is observable today in genetics.
Darwinism does not explain modern biology. Mendelian genetics does, and Mendelian genetics - the real way physical characteristics are passed on from generation to generation - demonstrates the difficulties in the Darwinian hypothesis. Genetics shows that mutations are continually rejected by populations and that reversion to the mean is characteristic of genetic variation.
(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.)
Both faith and science are founded on fact.
True. As St. Augustine said, God wrote two books - the Scriptures and Nature.
(Men wrote Scriptures. God created everything. The Theory of Evolution is true. None of these things contradict each other.)
However, belief in God is a leap of faith that science does not cover.
Incorrect. God's existence is a matter of fact, not of faith. What God has revealed about Himself, or whether He has revealed anything at all, is the subject of faith.
(That is not what the Bible says. I am surprised you would go to heresy to support your erroneous anti-scientific position.)
Do you deny that Jesus existed? If so, this is the same as denying Darwin's ideas.
That's just silly. Christ existed and Darwin had ideas.
(Unbelievable! You think Darwin didn't exist? That is the illogic of your argument.)
The fact that Darwin had ideas does not mean his ideas are automatically true.
Denying a historical fact - that Christ existed - is not the same as denying that Darwin's ideas are valid.
That's just an illogical statement.
(Darwin's ideas have been substantiated with millions of pieces of data that all fit together to solve the puzzle of how allele frequency changes in populations over time. Sorry if you can't face the truth.)
Do you believe Jesus existed-faith founded on fact.
Immaterial.
(I'll tell Jesus you said that.)
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.