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
You do understand that is not a rebuttal - it is just your opinion based on unrelated issues. Your religious intolerance is not an intellectual rebuttal. Why don't you address the article rather then attempt to read the man's mind and guess his motives.
I wrote: "Darwinism is absolutely not compatible with Scriptural Christianity." I am not able to recant. Frankly, I don't see that statement as either rude or counterproductive. I do, however, see the Darwinists (who disbelieve the clear teaching of Scripture and seek to diminish the power and sovereignty of the Creator) consistently being rude to Bible-believing Christians.
Are you claiming all aspects of evolution have been proved to the degree that they can be considered facts? If not, you have faith and I think you just called yourself a kook.
I asked for examples of lies - you put a quote and ask a leading question. Are you planning on showing us the lies in the article?
HINT: one must know a statement is untrue when we say it for it to be a lie.
The Evo's accusations often sound identical to the Democrat Moonbat slogan that "Bush lied"
I do choose my analogies carefully. The point is made.
Private?
I guess this evo thinks everybody should follow the herd and never think outside of the herd-mindset.
What question do you think I sidestepped - I was not responding to a question. Could you please support your accusation.
The only apparent basis the man has for making the assertions and drawing the conclusions in this article is his religion.
So a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley is not a basis to comment on evolution. That is a silly statement. Do you have a Ph.D in cell and molecular biology - if not, who are you to question his credentials.
So you plan is to attack the author personally rather than address what the article actually says?
There are so many flaws in the Museum (that even darwinists themselves disclaim) that it isn't even funny no thanks! Publically paid indocrination is not for me!!
Where are transitionals for the eye?
This is not true: I can name many noted scientists who do
not accept Darwinism.
Where he got his degree from is irrelevant to the question of what motivated him to pursue it in the first place.
So a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley is not a basis to comment on evolution.
Upon what basis in cell and molecular biology does he conclude that TToE is "first and foremost a weapon against religion"?
So instead of debating the issues (like most) you instead insult "creation" in an adhomnia attack "insutls conservatism". Did I EVER carry out adhominim attacks agasint Darwinsists (Despite the fact tha tI believe they are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong?), and say that they "insult conservatism"? Guess it's easier to demean rather than debate on the issues, huh..?
Name one!
I am asserting it is a lie to say that evolution is anti-religious. A flat lie.
If it isn't a lie, tell me how evolution is anti-religious, and a statement that the earth moves is not anti-religious. Tell me how physics is not anti-religious when it determines the age of the universe. Tell me how geology is not anti-religious when it determines the age of the earth. Tell me how medicine is not anti-religious when it relieves the pain of childbirth.
Religion has been accommodating the findings of science for as long as there has been science. Most people are willing to heed the warning of St. Augustine.
Good company, indeed.
The old and new testaments are the inspired Word of God - both written by Jews. The new testament is a continuation of the old testament.
Very well said! Thanks.
So are you saying the content of his studies are irrelevant. It does sound like you could be making excuses for your inablity to refute this article. So using your logic - what schools you went too and your credentuals are irrelavent, all you care about is what you have decided is his persons motives.
Upon what basis in cell and molecular biology does he conclude that TToE is "first and foremost a weapon against religion"?
Wells also has a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University - do some research before you post. Do you have a Ph.D. is theology?
Buck,
I don't know why you have a conviction that you don't want to share. I am speculating that you consider your reasoning a private part of your faith. I'm giving you an out. If you want to explain further, I'm all ears.
Best to you,
ampu
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.