Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by 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
Shoot. I mean post 333.
I re-read his post. It was a bit terse and I can see how you might be offended.
Just remember to keep Scripture in the proper context.
Which explains the vehemency of CR/IDers on these threads.
Pretty funny link -- thanks for the AM laugh.
OK, I acknowledge that post 333 is rude and counterproductive. Will you acknowledge that the post it responds to is also rude and counterproductive?
Remember the sarcasm rule: it has to be really, really dripping. The folks new to these threads lack that elan that brings us fogies to these threads ;)
Stupid, ignorant, crazy or evil, to paraphrase Dawkins. Personally, I oonsider anyone who calls evolution a "faith" to be a kook.
You are being dishonest - I quoted your entire statement. What do you think is rubbish - we sure as heck are not going to take your word one.
Speaking of hypocrisy
Now as for #68 - you took my comment out of context - this is what I was responding to:
"won't disturb the evolution ping list for a nonsensical creationist article. This thread is an embarrassment to conservatism."
An Evo was attacking the article with name-calling and empty unsupported accusations - acting like an "evo bozo" - thus the alert - WARNING: Evo Bozo's are going to attack this piece with name-calling and empty unsupported accusation. Check the tread - I was correct.
Please give us examples of these lies
You're not interested, or capable of arguing this material anyway. It's beyond your ability.
Why do Evo-Extremists turn to name-calling and personal insults so often? Are you trying to demonstrate how smart you think you are?
Clearly my Evo-Bozo alert was justified.
TToE is the only scientific theory that explains the evidence.
As the many EDUCATED scientists ( at least 400 of whom have signed a statement expressing their doubts ) have shown --- this unstated assumption does not hold water.
400 scientists out of how many hundreds of thousands? Every group has a moonbat wing.
Only to a bigot. Like MLK said (paraphrased and updated) - we need to judge a man by the context of his character and not the color of his skin or his religion
especially if he got into science because his "prophet" called him to do so
He got his Ph.D. from a prestigious college - not from his prophet.
Are you a Moonie or something?
No, I am just someone that calls out Male Bovine Fecal Matter when I see it.
Why don't you rebut the article rather than attack the man's religion?
We have freedom of religion in this country - I guess you are against freedom - do you want to force your personal religion on other people?
Buck,
I never once claimed to be of the strictly literal camp. Nor am I.
I simply asked... if you are not going to decide what to believe about the Savior based on Scripture, then how will you know?
I don't know any other way to ask that question. I wish I could be clearer in some way.
If you don't want to continue this discussion because it is too private, I respect your wishes.
Blessings to you,
ampu
Religions merely reflect the cultures that practice them. Conjure up a faith necessitated by violent criminals sadly in possesion of low IQs who wish to expand their holdings by the takings of others. What would it look like?
If one were to examine a bell curve that covered ranges including both IQ and passive->violent personalities, one could easily map where judiasm, xians & muzzies were on the graph.
Gene therapy is our only way out; the muzzies need to be administered to first. Next would be the IDers. The Pope is smart because it's unlikely science will ever figure out who/what established the rules of the universe.
Let's start with this:
...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.
How is evolution anti-religious, except that like astronomy, it contradicts some literal readings of the Bible? More specifically, tell us how the evolution is anti-religious, and heliocentrism not anti-religious.
Now, I am suspicious of "many" teachers being fired for questioning evolution. I would like to see a list. Would you consider a science teacher competent who taught that the earth cannot move?
How should we judge such a transparent attempt to sidestep the question?
Why don't you rebut the article rather than attack the man's religion?
The only apparent basis the man has for making the assertions and drawing the conclusions in this article is his religion. Are you saying we can't challenge those assertions and conclusions on the same basis?
TRD,
Thanks for the time you put into your thoughtful response.
Unfortunately, I find myself in disagreement with the argument that the scriptures are "merely our primary testimony of Him". They reveal Him. They reveal the true words he spoke. They delineate how to place faith in Him. And on and on. They are not merely the primary source. They are THE source of instruction for what must a man do to be saved.
You will search the scriptures in vain to find instructions to bow before man made images of God as a way of salvation. This is simply a tradition of man.
As to Paul's words... I learned Greek in seminar, so I do understand the meaning of the words used. Though anyone can use the good tools today that make the original languages accessible. The NT canon was not formed when Paul wrote these words - agreed. But Peter obviously was familiar with Paul's writings - so there were revealed books in circulation as letters to the Churches. There is nothing in Paul's words that limits them to just the Hebrew scriptures. Paul himself knew he was writing under the inspiration of God. It would be self-defeating to argue that he didn't include those inspired words.
Thankfully, we can agree that Jesus Christ is the Pearl of Great Price!
blessings to you,
ampu
What are you claiming - if you name-call against a group it is ok. Where did you get that wacked idea. My statement was not plural but that is irrelevant because all I was saying is here comes the nonsense, name-calling, and unsupported accusations.
Seems like the English language may be your second language.
What a dumba$$.
Great, you make an unsupported claim (name-calling is acceptable on Free Republic if it is against a group) and then you spew name-calling and personal insults.
(I didn't call you a dumba$$ just there according to you, and maybe Bill Clinton)
Speaking of being a dumba$$ - is that statement supposed to be in English?
(it is funny when an arrogant person flaunts their ignorance while spewing unsupported claims, personal insults, and claims of intellectual superiority)
That's the "living torah" doctrine.
You linked to my message related to the Pussy Cat Dolls - it was a joke and the last line of the message I say it is a joke. Your comments makes absolutely no sense.
So I am not sincere because I made a joke? (and clearly stated it was a joke)
You sound like a very bitter and angry person.
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.