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.
My punctuation can be helped. :-)
I suppose it's only benefit, then, is to give certain folks a sophisticated way of explaining away the obvious. Otherwise it must exist purely for its own sake. It cannot make predictions except of what will be found in the static record (just as can creationism as I've demonstrated). Creationism, OTOH, is bold enough to proclaim dogs will be dogs till the end of time. Let's see if that prediction comes true, shall we?
> Hitler's Final Solution was a direct result of Darwinistic thought.
Sorry, no. Hitler was a Creationist.
> But I bet you could easily tie "survival of the fittest" to "the Master Race"...
IF one stretched things all out of proportion, just maybe. However, *WHY* was the "Master Race" the "Master Race?" It wasn't because they evolved better... it was becaure they were *made* better.
Good ol' Creationism.
I don't think the available evidence supports either special Creation or evolutionary theory. Except for the fact that the human race began with Adam and Eve, the question of human origins is an open question.
I've explained this to you before, but here it goes again: Nobody says that it only takes a couple of individuals to produce a new species. It requires a subpopulation that is genetically isolated from the rest of a population. This subpopulation can become so different from the rest that they can no longer interbreed, and are therefore a new species.
No Christian-bashing intended. As far as my slavery example goes, I was being entirely factual. Many organized Christian denominations gave Biblical justifications for slavery. No Christian denomination does so today. Many people disagree as to what the Bible says. Are you telling me that only your belief about what the Bible says could possibly be right? Or does it make more sense to say that the Bible is right, but that people can misunderstand what is says?
Yegads, Dimensio! Does this mean that Darwin was a "creationist?" If so, what are the Evos and Crevos arguing about?
That goes along with:
Sorry, no. Hitler was a Creationist.
163 posted on 12/14/2004 4:52:45 AM CST by orionblamblam
It's hard to distinguish postmodernism from delirium sometimes.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Yo Dataman -- you got that right! :^)
Hitler was actually a creationist:
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.Source: Book 2, Chapter 10, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist
Godwin's placemarker.
---
Your opinion. Many others disagree.
---
Fine. They can disagree. That's not the issue. The issue is failing to even admit that disagreement exists and is legitimate.
---
For a fact it is always easy to say "there isn't enough evidence" and refuse to be satisfied.
---
It's not an issue of there not being enough evidence. It's an issue that the evidence which currently exists fails to support the hypothesis. To cling to the hypothesis without supporting evidence by claiming that some day the evidence will be found is horrible science.
---
Sorry, no. Hitler was a Creationist.
---
Hardly. Hitler despised religion. Do some research.
You should have posted a connect-the-dots picture of a straw man. It would have been a more accurate representation of your argument.
> Hitler despised religion.
The established ones, yes. However, he still bought into the Theosphoical Creationist nonsense about there once having been a Golden Age with a Perfect Race, of which the Germans were the descendants. Hitler was also quite convinced that God ("Providence") had selected him to lead the German people into a golden age of blah, blah, blah....
While Hitler was not your standard Christian, he was nevertheless a Creationist. He was not a Darwinian evolutionist. Neither were the Stalinists (they were Lamarkians). Neither are the Muslims (Allah made man as he is). Neither are Nation of Islamers (Allah made the blacks, an evil scientist made the whites - actually, the NoIsies are very similar to the Nazis in their Creationist beliefs... just swap some of the labels).
Behold the company of the Creationists.
See post 171.
Note the company you keep.
You should try reading Nietzsche sometime - you've obviously got a pretty distorted view of what he had to say. Come to think of it, that's true of your view of evolution also. In the future, I suggest skipping the Chick tracts and going straight to some primary sources.
---
You should try reading Nietzsche sometime - you've obviously got a pretty distorted view of what he had to say. Come to think of it, that's true of your view of evolution also. In the future, I suggest skipping the Chick tracts and going straight to some primary sources.
---
My compliments. Most defenders of evolution resort to personal attacks much sooner.
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.