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
If "Darwinism" was biologically inherited that might be the case. It is not. It is a scientific field.
Nice try though.
I'm not mincing words, and I don't understand your point.
As a practical matter you can imagine that you are at the center and move out from there. The mathematics involved supports that and numerous other conjectures.
I'm still waiting to see if they've finally disproven that it's actually shaped like a dodecahedron.
... help me here...
You see evolution as compatible with Christianity, but not if you believe what the Bible says?
I've always thought that the Bible was the basis of Christianity.
Is there another basis I missed in my thought process?
thanks,
ampu
"You see evolution as compatible with Christianity, but not if you believe what the Bible says?"
First, tell me what the Bible says.
That WON'T happen until Jesus comes back really really pissed off..
Its THEN the dialectic backstroke will start..
And there you have it. Darwin was not a scientist, but an atheist bent on the destruction of all religion masquerading as a scientist.
Not sure if this topic is of interest to you, but with your natural, *AHEM*, cantankerousness, I am certain you could make a contribution to this developing donnybrook!!
How did you ever acheive such gymnastics of illogical thought? So you are saying that there is a gene responsible for scientific rationality and that it will be selected out by abortion? SO you do believe in evolution. But you clearly have no idea what genetic science means.
In 1976, Jonathan Wells a student in Moon's seminary, answered his leader's call. Wells writes,Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. Source.
99.99999% of it was prepared after a suitible period of thought and analysis by men who sought God.
If you want a hard and fast rule book handed down directly by God to Man, then you ought to spend your time with the Koran and not the Bible.
No, the truth is that the theory of evolution and the principle of the 'survival of the fittest' has been hijacked by atheists bent on domination (Stalin, Hitler).
The theory of evolution, based on scientific observation and logical analysis, is RELIGION-NEUTRAL.
And its also the truth that the "Young-Earth Evos" (evangelicals) are tilting at a windmill instead of focusing their efforts on the real enemy....
My point is that you disagreed with him and then said the same thing in different words, with a little OP-ed at the beginning and end.
>>First, tell me what the Bible says.<<
Here: biblegateway.com
It's all there.
"Traditional Christianity" is/was the Catholic Church. I thought Protestantism was developed to destroy that particular entity, and long before Darwin's time too!(/sarcasm)
I think your leg got pulled.
With respect, that's a cop out.
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.