Posted on 12/13/2004 7:42:25 AM PST by Gritty
Destroying the unqualified and unjustified myth that "only religious fanatics oppose Darwinism", Dr. William Dembski's collection of essays presents a powerful and convincing case that exposes the many flaws and problems of Darwinism. Rather than having an agenda, the intellectuals that contributed to Uncommon Dissent exemplify the objective, rational, and scholarly manner in which they have both examined the various evolutionary theories and exposed these theories' many inconsistencies, oversights, and errors. The eloquence and thoroughness with which these essays critically analyze the Darwinian dogmas reveal that fanatical devotions to unproven theories are prevalent mainly in the mainstream secular scientific community - not among the many scholars and scientists who dare question the veracity and universality of various evolutionary models.
One of Dembski's key objections to the assertion that random changes created the vast complexity of life is a fitting summary of the structural problem of evolutionary thought. Dembski notes that "this blind process, when coupled with another blind process, is supposed to produce designs that exceed the capacities of any designers in our experience." This theoretical and chaotic process has been proposed and promoted by Darwinists as fact without the required scientific evidence to back it up. Furthermore, the intolerance shown to dissenting voices that question evolutionary theories reveals a dangerous pattern of repression and censorship within the scientific establishment.
The missing fossil data needed to support evolution is a crucial argument expressed by many of the book's contributors. If Darwin was correct, then scores of transitional animal forms must exist in the geological record. However, as Phillip E. Johnson points out:
The fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms liking the vastly different organisms of today… with their hypothetical common ancestors.
Such evidence simply does not exist. According to Cornelius G. Hunter:
The observed fossil pattern is invariably not compatible with a gradualistic evolutionary process. The fossil record does not reveal a pattern of accumulated small-change.... New species appear fully formed, as though planted there, and they remain unchanged for eons.
In the face of such convincing evidence, one would expect evolutionary scientists to acknowledge some serious flaws in their theories. After all, science should be about searching for the truth. Unfortunately, Johnson notes:
When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate.
Instead of admitting the problems and allowing for criticism, the Darwinist establishment ignores the data and muzzles the dissenters, choosing to discredit the messengers rather than face reality. As Dembski observes:
Darwinism has achieved the status of inviolable science, combining the dogmatism of religion with the entitlement of science.
Michael J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" organisms present yet another stumbling block for Darwinists. He observes that most organisms are "irreducibly complex, meaning they need several parts working together in order to function." According to Behe, this creates "headaches for Darwinian theory because they are resistant to being produced in the gradual, step-by-step manner that Darwin envisioned." For evolution to work, all the complex biochemical systems needed for an organism to live must "evolve" simultaneously and in perfect synchronization so this new creature can eat, remove waste, move, and survive. Since evolutionists maintain this must all happen by chance, only an enormous miracle (or an intelligent designer) can explain these countless chaotic processes instantly coming into existence -- with just the right fine-tuning and harmonization -- to allow even the simplest organisms to stay alive. Darwinism's gradual steps and trial and error explanations simply do not suffice.
Uncommon Dissent promises to not only "detail the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory," but to also show that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." In both respects, the essays meet and exceed these expectations. Given Dembski's own impressive academic credentials and the solid intellectual qualifications of his contributors, this book provides a strong dissenting voice to challenge the many half-truths, obfuscations, and mistakes of mainstream evolutionary thinking.
The central weakness or "fatal flaw" of Darwinism is its inability to explain the existence of both rational thought and the origins of the inherent complexity of life evident in the huge variety of organisms and their immensely intricate DNA code. The very existence of such a "code" implies that a rational force was needed to encode it. Creationists like to call this God, while Darwinists call it chaos.
While Darwin's theory seems to explain how small-scale evolutionary changes or limited natural selection processes could operate within certain species, it fails miserably to describe, as Robert Koons observes, how such functional forms and processes "came to be there in the first place" and, as Edward Sisson notes, it "tells us nothing about when and how the genes we see today first came into existence." The cavernous gap that exists in the scientific evidence purporting to prove how one-celled organisms "evolved" into man remains an immense and significant problem for Darwinists. As James Barham so eloquently notes:
Epic poems and Boeing 747s do not come into existence by themselves, no matter how much time is available - and neither do cells, or even proteins.
Darwinists demand a bigger miracle than any creationist could ever claim, as they assert that "only matter in mindless motion" gave birth to intelligent life and consciousness. Indeed, the faith required to believe that chaos allowed inanimate matter to become alive and to eventually develop into rational beings is far greater than the faith needed to acknowledge that an intelligent Creator designed it all from the beginning. Dembski is quite correct when he concludes, "Getting design without a designer is a good trick indeed."
Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneurial businessman, and university professor. He manages the conservative site OrthodoxNet.com, writes articles, and has given talks and conducted seminars on a variety of business and religious topics.
Harsh Flames? Maybe amonug the newbies but us old timers have gotten a bit used to one another. We've seen the error of our ways (communication styles) and have lightened up a bit....
Indeed. If you (1) are in search of something that shows you have values (2) will put you in agreement with the majority of the electorate and (3) doesn't in principle offend minorities, women, homosexuals or any other part of your 'core' constituency, what better philosophy to embrace than creationism? To say nothing of the long and glorious history of creationism among the Dems - after all, the most famous American creationist of all time was four time Dem. nominee for President!
I'd say they're a natural pairing, like bacon and eggs.
"Personally, I'll take the evidence the world presents."
You mean that every phylum came into the fossil record fully formed with no intermediaries?
You can't get there from here.
(Famous line in a joke)
"However, if you drive REALLY ast, and hit that ramp just right, a lot of us agree that your momentum will probably carry you on over...."
(Simplified "E" explanation for a LOT of things.)
You can't get there from here.
(Famous line in a joke)
"However, if you drive REALLY fast, and hit that ramp just right, a lot of us agree that your momentum will probably carry you on over...."
(Simplified "E" explanation for a LOT of things.)
Tackled IS the right word.
And the mag is not biased at all!
> doesn't in principle offend minorities, women, homosexuals or any other part of your 'core' constituency, what better philosophy to embrace than creationism?
Well, keep in mind that Creationism is the perfect tool for the racist wing of the Dem party. Rather than stressing a Darwinian goal of striving to be the best, they can focus more on a "You were Created that way." Remember, the most rabid racists of the past century were Creationists.
A philosophy based on Darwinian evolution can lead to excellence, as the best prosper (i.e. Darwinism = capitalism and entepreneurship), while Creationism leads to full blown Fascism and Communism (i.e. you were Created the way you are, and efforts to change that are affronts to God).
Posting the same thing twice doesn't make it any less illucid.
"Skeptic" regularly has both sides of the Creationism debate, with dialogues that continue over several issues. I suggest you pick up a copy, and read it before you burn it.
This is a moving of the goal-posts. When arguing for evolution, the goal-posts are likelihood, but when discussing the arguments against evolution (like irreducible complexity) the goal-posts are a proven impossibility based on purely imagined sequences, no matter how improbable.
Creationists are not allowed to state possibilities that may not be entirely likely, but evolutionists are. Therefore, evolution is true and creationism is false.
Curses, you've found our secret. If you laugh at it, it suddenly becomes false.
Do you actually have anything to offer these discussions besides your ignorance-fueled ridicule?
Ok, I now get to steal a point...
Just as a film of a trotting horse gives incontrovertible evidence of motion, so the fossil record gives evidence of Evolution.
The film does not have an infinite number of "intermediaries" between the static frames of the horse. But viewed from beginning to end, said film showing individual poses of the horse is evidence enough that it was indeed "moving".
I love that analogy.
Elsie's a great poster. Typical creationist. Need more of them like the Democratic party needs more gay marriage people.
"What advances do you predict ID will produce? In fact, can you name one single medical or biological leap that we might achieve via ID?"
ID has us searching for meaning and function in all parts of the cell, rather than relegating those parts we don't understand to vestigal status.
Sure. Here's one: "Evolutionists will prove beyond any doubt the earth was formed billions of years ago."
Since it is clearly intended to debunk the heavily pro-Darwin bias we live with now, I wouldn't expect it to be unbiased. The more relevant question is: Are they correct?
Ah, like studying the appendix. Or male nipple. Can you cite some of the clinical research conducted so far?
Evolutionists say that it only takes a couple of virile new individuals to start a whole new line of creatures.
Biologists say that when a creatures population gets very small, they'll probably go extinct due to small size of gene pool.
Who is a poor, uninformed sap suppossed to believe?
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.