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.
" Actually, creationism does make predictions. I once started a vanity thread about it:
The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism"
Ummm.... those are _your_ predictions, not creationisms.
#1 - creationists do not believe in fixity of species as you imply. We believe in boundaries of change, but not in absolute fixity. In addition, the number of potential transition fossils found is quite small.
#2 - what is your definition of pre-human? If you are talking about direct ancestry, yes. If you are talking humanoid, no.
#3 - this is just total BS. Saying there should be "no evidence" of any theory is just stupid. Every theory, no matter how crazy, has some evidence going for it. Historical inquiries are even tougher, as most of the data is gone and you have to infer it through secondary sources. This makes the number of legitimate beliefs about history very large.
#4 - why would you make this a prediction of creationism?
#5 - not necessarily true. Not all creationists are 6-day creationists. Many who are 6-day creationists believe that certain actions during the flood caused a sorting of the animals.
It's obvious if you make up someone else's predictions for their theories, it's easy to refute them. I could easily come up with more plausible ones for evolution than you have for creationism that are easily refutable.
"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"."
So what? It still doesn't answer the question -- how did ALL PHYLUMS of creatures enter the fossil record fully formed? This is not a small step that was missed. This is the most critical stage that is simply unaccounted for. In your horse instance, it would be like saying "I have a video of my horse jumping over a car, and then right before the jump, blacking out for a few seconds, and then video resuming with the horse on the other side of the car. Such a video provides little proof that the horse actually jumped.
And "Evolution" predicts stuff??
Right you are - it makes it MORE lucid!
Sweetie, I have subSCRIBED to it be fore.
(or was that Skeptical Inquirer????)
Can I try insulting?
You are wrong: I am atypical.
Therefore Evolution is false.
Please, try again.
Trivial in principle to determine that that is false. All you need is a newly uncovered Cambrian stratum with 'Made by God, 4004 B.C.', etched into it.
So I'll take that as a 'no'.
Thank you Elsie :-)
Reads like five straw men to me. Here's a few predictions creationism would make, assuming an almighty, eternal Creator is responsible for the universe we are given to explore:
1.)The universe should demonstrate attributes of its creator, such as eternity, vastness, energy beyond human comprehension, and hidden things no human mind will ever ascertain.
2.)The given universe will operate with consistent physical laws within each environmental subset, for example, planet earth. Chaos would be the exception, not the rule, at least where man is placed.
3.)Assuming the biblical record to be correct - that the Creator placed man into creation as a crowning achievement -creationism should predict that man would have certain attributes as also present in the Creator, for example the ability to comprehend the universe and put it into words, i.e. communicate about it.
4.) Creationism would predict a vast amount of design, not only according to what can be viewed on the surface, but also as the invisible becomes visible through tools to extend the senses, for example DNA.
5.) Creationism would predict an intelligent agent behind the organization of design, because even ordinary human intelligence knows that where there is design, there is a designer.
6.) Creationism would predict that the earth will continue to operate under the principles with which God established it until He chooses to fold up tent, i.e. remove His sustaining Word from the same.
7.) Creationism would predict that, 5,000 years from now, dogs will be dogs.
Evolutionism would not predict any of these things, of course, so it has a lot of explaining to do, given the fact it has a universe to operate in but no explanation as to how that universe came about. So far I've found the explanations of evolutionism to be sorely lacking. What does evolution predict as the operative agent in forming the universae, all its organized components, it's physical laws, and the ability to observe and comprehend them?
In fact, when evolutionism is asked to predict how the evolutionary process will run for the next hundered years or so, it suddenly ducks the question of "predictability."
So, God has given evolutionists a universe to comprehend and explain, but rather than give God any credit, they would rather "explain" Him out of the picture. That's fine. He's patient. That's also part of His essence, and so I would also predeict that evoltuionists will continue to disparage creationists until the Creator decides to fold up tent at the Day of His choosing.
Let's see how it all pans out, shall we?
Nice try. Even cute.
Maybe you're just one of those wacky Raelians
No not at all. Rapid speciation has been thought to occur during rapid environmental changes. Strong environmental stress, leads to strong evolutionary pressure (either change or go extinct).
The battle is between evolution and science.
They are correct in that they point out a few holes with Darwinian evolution. However, right or wrong science has developed new theories to cope with what Darwin couldn't explain. They did not deal with debunking the new scientific support for evolution. Like I said they did not say anything that was incorrect, just misleading. They merely pointed out the holes that science has already addressed. They carefully used the term "Darwinian" evolution, but ignore the larger evolution by means other than gradualism and natural selection.
I'm sure the folks down at the university will be glad to know that.....
You really learn things on FR crevo threads
I had thought it was Creationists who were saying that.
At this point, you are insulting. You're allowed to do it, I'm just letting you know that it only makes you look like a fool who knows nothing about the subject against which you rail.
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.