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.
Well I am a scientist first. Skepticism is a natural component of science, however I take except when people or groups use science to propogate their belief or disbelief by telling half-truth and misleading people with carefully constructed semantics. That fact that I understand the vague terminology used, I find this completely unconvincing. All it does is point to the development of new theories and other tenents that attempt fill in the gaps of that Darwinian evolution alone does not answer.
This kind of thread used to? This kind of thread is becoming a daily occurrence on FR.
> Do you believe that reasonable people can disagree?
On some things, yes. Reasonable people can disagree on the specifics of biology, but the fact of evolution is quite clear. To me, denying evolution is akin to denying continental drift or the motions of the planets.
If I was a True Red Blooded Conservative who just happened to believe in the Hollow Earth and regular visitations from the Ascended Masters in UFO's, would you just shrug it off as something reasonable people could disagree about?
> Unfortunately, when one talks of such things as "irreducible complexity" or "evolution of information" around the hard core Darwinists, one generally hears the sound of silence.
That's because they are complex issues. But they have largely been answered.
> it is totally illogical to use ID tools to prove that ID doesn't exist.
"ID tools?"
The operative word in our dialogue being "reasonable". The definition of reason would then apply. And there is no quantifiable definition of reason.
Therefore, it would seem that much leeway must be given, if one is to be a 'reasonable' person.
Now that was nice. You have encapsulated it well, FB.
> I don't buy the "Trust Me" answers from the Darwinists.
Then don't buy that answer. Buy the actual answers. They are out there, and are not that hard to find.
The fact that someone has to sit and ponder a while when asked a "hey, what about this" with regards to a theory does not mean that the theory is flawed or broken. It just means that it is complex, and that not everything has been thought of yet. "Irreducible Complexity" is as much a fundamental problem for evolution as the "Dean Drive" was to Newtonian physics.
> This necessarily casts a pro-ID taint on any and all experiments and observations in the realm of evolutionary science.
Ah. I get it. The fact that any experiment must be designed by humans (intelligent designers), and thus, no experiment is possible that will convince those who believ ethat all things are thus created by an Intelligent Designer.
Everything has changed since the 60's. The Theory of Evolution became fact since the Liberal Secular Humanists took over. Two thirds of Americans have never fell for it. ...65% said that biblical creation should be part of the curriculum, along with evolution. These Bible-based beliefs about the origins of life are churning American politics.
>The "Hard Sciences" of Academia have drunk the John Kerry Kool-Aid.
Wow... you're starting to pick up the mantle of wacky illucid posting left by... what was his handle? "F_Christian" or some such?
> Two thirds of Americans...
Look into what many Americans believe. It's scary. Americans (Red, Blue, doesn't matter) are almost wholly ignorant of actual science. This is not surprising given the extraordinarily lame nature of the treatment of science in mass media. Someone might be able to tell you chapter and verse about their favorite sport or TV show, but ask them about physics, chemistry, biology or most any other science, and you'll either get silence or sheer hogwash. Hell, look at the supposedly "science" based cable networks: lots of claptrap about parapsychology and UFO's. The motorcycle shows are nice, but they ain't science.
Bubblegum for the mind.
> Perhaps you would be so kind to post some links.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
"Skeptic" magazine has tackled the issue several times.
> When trying to remove ID from the evolutionary picture, Darwinists must remove all impurities also.
Observe the world. Evolution can be seen in the fossil record. No "ID" needed.
> For, after all, if we as finite humans can obtain a certain result using our limited toolset, what makes us think that a much more intelligent agent could not do the same on a far vaster scale?
Uh-huh. Well, this highly hypothetical Intelligent Designer left *abundant* evidence of evolution, so much so that the conclusion seems not only obvious, but *pointed* *out*. So, if you think that this IDer is God, and that evolution is a lie... then you are left with the inescapable conclusion that God is a liar. Personally, I'll take the evidence the world presents.
This is a Leftist tactic if I ever saw one.
I would have you know that a vast majority of those disagreeing with the Theory of Evolution are conservatives. Conservatives, by nature, are more skeptical and concerned with truth. The data is available to all. Reading past the misinterpretation of the Leftist Scientific Academia is actually rather entertaining. I am not a genius, but one thing I have learned is to believe more those who are conservative and have less trouble admitting when they are wrong. This is not so any longer amongst Academic scientists. Their interpretation techniques expose their lack of a concern for seeking truth.
So much of science requires disclaimers because we know and understand so little. Those who refuse to include disclaimers are not to be trusted.
Your skepticism is misdirected. Consider what I have said when you read the next scientific study.
Ping.
|
I don't expect you'll get any disagreement on that point.
Just as democrats refuse to acknowledge Bush's win, some evolutionists refuse to give up. It's over, and since evolutionists labeled their hoax "science," it will be decades or even centuries before real science gets its reputation back.
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.