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.
the intolerance shown to dissenting voices that question evolutionary theories reveals a dangerous pattern of repression and censorship within the scientific establishment...
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...
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:18-21).Who painted the Mona Lisa? No one! It's the product of blind material forces.
Conservatives, by nature, are more tradition bound and less open to modern ideas.
See how pigeon-holing works? You don't look at the evidence, just categorise what conservatives should think.
Dataman's been a pro for a long time.....
Gentlemen, Gentlemen (and some ladies too). Please remember the following, whatever side you are on:
1. There is no such thing as Darwinism. There used to be Darwinian Evolution, but even that has passed. We are talking about Evolution, pure and simple, attempts to make a whipping boy of Charles Darwin serve no purpose, especially when I doubt few of you have actually read him.
2. For you in the middle, get a backbone. If not, prepare to have your butt chewed on by both sides.
3. There is no such thing as Truth by Consensus. 65%, 80%, 5% are meaningless. A fact is a fact, even if it is in the minority.
4. I too, would like to see Science rescued for the future, but rescued from those who try to force non-science on it and abscond with the term "science" to give an air of validity to garbage.
Damn!. It looks like I killed another thread....Unclean.....unclean...
You and I disagree on the exact meaning of some parts of the Bible. Such disagreements have been going on for millennia.
My translation of Genesis doesn't conflict with science. Your's does. That's a pity, because you're a smart guy and could be doing something proactive for God rather than attempting to tear something down that is irrelevant to Him.
Religious Conservatives are going to need every bit of political capital they can muster in the next few months on things like Surpreme Court nominees and more. It should'nt be squandered for such silly issues as this. Or, perhaps you're a DU troll attempting to distract us from what we should be doing?
Conservatives, by nature, are more tradition bound and less open to modern ideas.
Modern ideas need to be vetted, and conservatives have taken the time to vet. The conclusions disagree with Liberal thought, but as always, agree with truth.
I will stick with the word Truth. Check the link to learn who the vetters are. Truths that are illegal to teach in modern schools.
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?
What's my translation of Genesis?
Please, they can't even provide a hypothetical falsification criteria. They just assert that evolution has already been disproven, backing up their claims by completely misrepresenting evolution.
Further, how many creationists are being hired by the biotech industry? As businesmen, biotech executives want to produce results. If creationism (or ID, creationism's little sister) were such a splendid "science," the biotech industry should be hiring all the creationists they could get their hands on. And the fruits of "creation science" should be seen in the marketplace.
I have read that some prominent leftists in the social sciences are anti-evolution because it is part of the "establishment". Not because of any evidence, but because of what it might represent.
Nonetheless, I'd love to see if they can dig something up from one of their websites. Or perhaps I'll get no response at all.
Interesting. The definition of "The Theory of Evolution" starts with generalities and winds up with "the theory of evolution." The definition of "theory" under "scientific method" says nothing whatsoever about "falsifiability" being a necessary characteristic of the same. Good thing, because theories of evolution twist the evidence in such a way as to place falsifiability beyond reach.
Thousands are! They are just forced to label themselves Evolutionists because the Cabal Of Evil Scientists wouldn't hire them if they didn't!
I'm sure they do, as a good many creationists know how to set their biases aside and do science without the baggage, not unlike Newton and Galileo.
In Popper's view, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.
Wow. That's about the funniest thing I've read all day....
...except for the fact that some people will actually buy into that nonsense.
You bet! I feel personally threatened by all organized attempts to spread lies. It's particularly frustrating to see a movement that specializes in passing these big lies inside slippery, tasty, thin coatings of truth.
Holocaust revisionism, Hollywood-communists denial, FDR hagiography, global warming, creationism. Different lies, and some more evil than others. But all lies, marketed to us "for our own good".
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.