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
Heh, heh. Reminds me of those "fetus drawings".
Please look up the word "lie"
Unless you can prove the person who said that knew it was not true - all you are doing is presenting your personal opinion not based on any facts (none that you have presented). You, like Democrat Moonbats, seem to not understand the meaning of the word "lie" - as in "Bush lied about WMD in Iraq"
I am asserting it is a lie to say that evolution is anti-religious.
I think there is some evidence that much of what is called "evolution" is in deed anti-religious - but far from all of it. You are going to have a heck of a time disproving somebodies opinion.
If data related to the statement does not support the statement - the statement is NOT considered a lie.
If you think it is a lie - prove that no supporters of evolution are anti-religious. You know that is absurd.
So then why isn't the mudskipper a "found" link? Doesn't it appear to be some sort of transition between a fish and amphibian or land reptile?
Another person that gets it - bravo!
I did some reviewing - I replied to every statement in your message and there was one question but it was related to my personal beliefs - I answered it.
Please stop with the baseless accusations unless your goal is to be a troll.
No, I'm not. A question of what motivated him to seek his degree was answered by stating where he got his degree from - the content of his studies is irrelevant to what motivated him to pursue that study. I don't believe that you are unable to understand that why a person does something is a separate issue from how they go about doing it.
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?
I'm aware of his degree in theology. If he's making these assertions from a theological basis, then why argue over his credentials as a biologist?
I don't have a degree in theology. Will you state outright that unless I have a degree in theology I have to accept anything he says as fact, or just make tacit implications?
The question you sidestepped was posed by stands2reason, and the reply was to him. The thread chain leads right back to there.
If you think I'm being a troll, you know where the abuse button is.
Right.
His Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology as well as his a Ph.D. in theology is clearly no basis /sarcasm
Once again you are attacking the man in an attempt to refute his positions - that is fallacious logic.
You: This is not true: I can name many noted scientists who do not accept Darwinism.
One statement doesn't contradict the other. Among all scientists, the figure drops to something around 95% or so (depending on how "scientist" is defined; are engineers scientists? doctors). BTW, the only "noted scientist" would be Fred Hoyle; the others are more noted for writing popular books than for their science.
A fair statement, but Wells is an educated polemicist. His intention to defame evolution is undeniable, and he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that evolution is one of many scientific findings that contradict literal readings of the Bible. Therefore, he knows that evolution can only be anti-religious in the same sense that all of science is anti-religious.
Because all of science ignores religion and the Bible, and every branch of science has findings that contradict a literal reading of the Bible.
Correction duly noted. "Was and is" would probably be even better.
This one goes in the Evo Silly Statements Hall of Fame.
In your mind, what a person has done or said is irrelevant - all you care about is what you decide are their motives.
Once again - are you going to address any issues in the article or is it your plan to merely attack Wells personally?
Some Evo's seem to be masters of fallacious logic.
Where have I attacked him personally? I have questioned the basis for his assertions and conclusion, and the logical implicatiions of those assertions and conclusions, period. Please show me where I have attacked this man personally.
I didn't decide what his motive are, I just questioned what where he got his degree from has to do with what motivated him to pursue it. Apparently you don't find that a fair question.
I already did in my firstst ppost to htis thread at #237. That's why I wrote the little ditty.
What in high heaven are you talking about? Have you been part of the same thread that I have?
Excellent post. Couldn't say it better myself.
It is quite interesting the way the darwinists attack anyone who questions their faith. I don't know how many posters are actually scientists or academics, but for those who ARE, ignorance regarding what ID really IS is unforgivable. At the very least, they are frauds. All creationists can live with ID, not very many ID adherents can accept creationism. Here is a FACT: a great many legitimate scientists question the idea that darwinism is a "fact". They are ALL looking for another answer and hoping it ISN'T God.
One more repetition, then the smarmy know-it-alls can have their, truly, stupid thread back. IN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE FACT-NOT ONE- to support darwinism. To see the unscientific means by which the darwinist community has attempted to defraud the public is certainly one of the most disreputable circus acts anyone has ever witnessed. Sooner or later, I hope the "there ain't no God" materialists come to the realization that the American people are just not as stupid as they hope. Not all are creationists, not all even believe in God but more and more are beginning to realize that the darwinists are WRONG- although the idea that SOME are related to monkeys IS rather easy to accept...
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.