Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[SirLinksalot]

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle

[Theo]

So it's devolved to this, hm? Ridiculing the Christian has become the in thing on FR.

I see you've been here only a couple of years.

[Buck W.]

Your post is condescending and closed-minded. You don't have nearly the knowledge of Jesus that you claim. The spouting of memorized scripture does not equate to spirituality or closeness to God.

[NewLand]

Why is this in news/activism?

There is not one shred of conservative or political news or call to action (activism) in this article.

We need a science & technology forum.

[freedumb2003]

Chemistry does not rely on the ToE. I've taken my share of college chemisty courses and the TOE never entered into them even once. It would be much more accurate to say that the ToE depended on chemistry.

In the area of Parmecueticals (spell check reminder to self), the combination of Biology, Genetics, Medicine, etc. all work together and are predicated on understanding what makes A affect B, all of which are based TToE. I was over simplifying, so thanks for the chance to expand a little.

As far as Bio, there's plenty to study there, too, that doesn't require the ToE at all. And I've taken those too, and while ToE is encountered more, the stuff I studied didn't *depend* on it.

You can also be a programmer and use SQL without understanding the Relational Model. But you'll always be just a programmer. I don't know if that analogy is helpful, but the point is that to try to really understand WHY what is happening, you need to understand the foundation (in this case TToE).

So how is Astronomy and Chemistry *anti-Genesis*?

Astronomy says that stars are billions of years old and are suns similar to our own Sol. For strict literalists, this is NOT what Genesis says. Chemistry suggests that there are changes from the setup that God established. Again, not what literal Genesis says.

I was being exemplary and a bit over the top in the case of Chemistry but am serious about astronomy.

[freedumb2003]

And here I said that with so many more words (see my 334 and 336).

;)

[freedumb2003]

I mentioned that but was explained that these ARE news worthy ideas.

The dumbing down of America by the extreme Right Wing is very much a front and center issue and should not be isolated (although it does get relegated).

[doc30]

Coll catch - but I didn't think of the Biblical connection. It was related to my post #114. I normally stay away from the creationist articles because there is simply too much pseudo-scientific mud to sort through. But I don't recall you ever getting deep into the mud pits like others have.

Cheers to you, too!

[grey_whiskers]

...Chemistry, both of which rely on TToE)

Pardon my French, but WTF?

The Pauli exclusion principle, quantum mechanics, and ionic bonding (for example) do not 'rely' on TToE...

Could you be more specific, or rephrase that, please?

(I might just have misread the post, or taken it out of context.)

Cheers!

[freedumb2003]

Ridiculing the Christian has become the in thing on FR.

Using Scripture in a discussion about Science is the same as using Scripture in a discussion about auto repair.

It may be interesting to YOU, but it is not germaine to the discussion. There are many faiths, each with their own Holy Text.

From an independent standpoint, none are superior, since all depend on faith.

That does NOT mean Christianity doesn't have a lot to offer. It just means it is not in play here.

[bondserv]

I read it. You are trying to pretend to be magnanimous and say "well, as long as you accept Him it is OK. The fact you know little about Him (assumed "unlike me" and "because you understand science") isn't THAT important.

I got your meaning exactly

If my posting the pertinent passages makes you feel attacked, I apologize to you sincerely. My intention is always to highlight what the Bible actually says to remove confusion. Many people who have not spent time reading the Bible only have other peoples idea's of what the Bible says. I laid the scripture out there for all to see, rather than attempt to explain what the Bible says. The passages are abundant and straightforward in their declaration.

You are welcome to post the passages that demonstrate these mean something different than they say. I am open to having the Word of God straighten me out.

[freedumb2003]

I was little fast off the draw -- I mean it in concert with the other sciences which work together to make drugs. THAT chemistry needs TToE as a theoretical foundation.

Oh and DANG I forgot to spell check my response ;( I am SURE I misspelled Pharmaceuticals.

[stands2reason]

Anyone who joins a cult has suspect mental faculties, especially if he got into science because his "prophet" called him to do so.

Are you a Moonie or something?

[freedumb2003]

My intention is always to highlight what the Bible actually says to remove confusion. Many people who have not spent time reading the Bible only have other peoples idea's of what the Bible says. I laid the scripture out there for all to see, rather than attempt to explain what the Bible says. The passages are abundant and straightforward in their declaration.

Your post was pretty heavy handed. You suggest that because you have memorized the words of the Scriptures (I assume in their original languages), that you are somehow excluded from human interpretation.

There are 2 issues here: 1) Scripture is not a source of science and 2) Genesis is open to interpretation (and is contradictary).

The fact people have and do interpret the Bible differently doesn't mean they are wrong.

[Buck W.]

Just call me terse! You said it better, though.

[freedumb2003]

100 years from now, our descendants will all be living in a North American caliphate, and this silly little debate won't be permitted.

Or they will be merely unable to read or write anything except Scripture and will depend on Mexico and Vietnam to provide all science and technology.

[freedumb2003]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[taxesareforever]

Yes it is.

The Lie: Evolution (Paperback)
by Ken Ham (Author)

[Uncle Billy]

aren't there more important things to be worried about?

[stands2reason]

Are they not supposed to be interested in other areas of science?

Why do creos call all science they don't like "evolution"?