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

[Dazedcat]

As long as science keeps moving forward and doesn't settle on the Darwinian theory for all its answers, then fine.

Dogma is a terrible thing and confuses greater issues.

[muawiyah]

You are wrong if you think the term "Evangelical" means "young earth" crowd.

Bet you think Holy Rollers use snakes in church too.

Two things you need to do ~ learn something about Christianity, and secondly, get a cage for your mongoose.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Big universe. A lot of planets out there. Starlight traveling for hundreds of millions of years and more to reach us. We see other planetary systems forming. I know our system looked the same at one time. Thats all I need to know really that an evolutionary process took place on earth.

Our solar system itself evolved and formed over great time. We have learned that our solar system is not unique. I see no reason for supernatural explainations stepping in at some point after billions of years to create humans after hundreds of millions of years reign of dinosaurs and other life. Freedom of beliefs we have in this nation. And we are all free to base our beliefs on whatever we choose, faith, science or otherwise. Some combine the two even. I respect everyones beliefs. But I choose what makes the most logical sense to me based on all evidence presented by all sides.

[Buck W.]

I don't believe I did. The question isn't what Darwinism (more properly, evolution) is. I agree that it is about decending from a common ancestor. What I disagree with is the incompatibility with Christianity.

[Dimensio]

Darwin was not a scientist, but an atheist bent on the destruction of all religion masquerading as a scientist.

I believe that you have confused declaration with demonstration. The author assets that "Darwinism" is a "myth" and a "weapon against science", but offers no credible evidence that this is the case. Moreover, your claims about Charles Darwin himself are not only also without evidence, but are also not even a logical conculsion of accepting the claim of the excerpt that you have quoted as factual.

[drangundsturm]

Susceptability to different types of idea or philosophy could easily be biologically based. Indeed, if survival is enhanced by having certain points of view, then evolution guarantees that organisms who tend towards those points of view will be selected for. A mechanism to steer the organism toward those points of view will develop if at all possible. For example, humans are born with a fear of snakes and loud noises because those fears aided survival. There is no reason to suppose that some people are born with a tendency to be swayed by one kind of idea over another.

[RoadTest]

This means that the rumor about the death of Common Sense has been greatly exaggerated.

[Last Visible Dog]

Thank you for the pings, gentlemen. In accordance with my long-standing policy, I won't disturb the evolution ping list for a nonsensical creationist article. This thread is an embarrassment to conservatism.

Evo-Bozo Alert!!!

[Last Visible Dog]

You see evolution as compatible with Christianity, but not if you believe what the Bible says?

Ok, what secret decoder ring do you use to determine allegory from textbook-style facts? I am not bashing the Bible - but it is not that simple.

[Al Simmons]

*LOL*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man I'm gonna get it from both sides today!!

Actually, as a 'recovering born-again Christian', I know more about it than you'd think. I've personally ,et some of the biggest names in born-again Christianity, and I am sad to say that for every Billy Graham there are 5 or 6 hucksters, making it up as they go along.

I'll never forget Creflo Dollar asking people to come up and leave $$$$ at the feet of the preacher whose church he was guest-speaking at, or Kenneth Copeland telling the story of how God told him to buy a million-dollar airplane and then how his congregation made it happen.

True, not all evangelicals believe the earth is 5000 years old. I've seen John Haggee bend over backwards to demonstrate that BOTH the Bible is literally true AND the earth could have had a billion-year history BEFORE Adam and Eve.

So stupid. So very, very, stupid.

If you're offended by my tag line, so be it. The most violent, abusive, individual that I have ever had the misfortune to be associated with (yes, its an ex-wife, you guessed it!) was a Bible-thumping, holier-than-though born-again Christian (OBTW, did you know that she is the only perfect Christian on planet earth? No? Well that's the impression she'd give you. And if you disagreed and tried to discuss it with her, you just might find your mouth meeting her fist.)

And you know what is even more bizarre? She had an IQ of 150 and worked in the medical field (ie had a scientific background). So she was so F-ed up on so-many levels, with so many contradictions, someone could probably write a 500-page case-study just on her!

As far as evolution goes, I'll just say that Pope John Paul The Great's statement on the subject is one I agree with.

And, as an aside, I would suggest you look into one of the two wings of the real church (ie. Catholic or Orthodox). I'm not saying that all Protestants believe in heresies, mind you, but as far as the current crop of American evangelicals, well....if the shoe fits....

[Coyoteman]

Time to abandon thread. Things are going to the dogs quickly.

[skeptoid]

"...When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. ..."

.....!YIKES!......

[Al Simmons]

"Time to abandon thread. Things are going to the dogs quickly."

I'm confused. I thought you'd feel right at home???? (Hint: 'Coyoteman' - get it?)

[stormer]

"In 1976, Jonathan Wells a student in Moon's seminary, answered his leader's call. Wells writes,..."

Thank you for bringing this up. As I read through this thread I was anticipating posting Well's quote; you beat me to it. Personally, I find it perverted that anyone would go through the trouble of pursuing a PhD merely to acquire a credential that will help them to masquerade as credible - he clearly did not do it on his own dime. I did a cursory search for his dissertation from home and came up empty, but tomorrow the new term starts, so if I have time I'll take a look at the databases at the U.

[Last Visible Dog]

If I was silly enough to believe this article, I would be afraid, very afraid.

If this is your best argument, you should be afraid, very afraid.

[mugs99]

Darwin was not a scientist, but an atheist bent on the destruction of all religion masquerading as a scientist

Darwin wasn't an Atheist. He was a Unitarian. He believed in Nature's God, not the God of Christian scripture.
"I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."...Charles Darwin
.

[muawiyah]

Everybody who's not a catholic or a holyroller and claims Christian affiliation is either an evangelical or a mormon (whether they are right or wrong).

[Al Simmons]

"Everybody who's not a catholic or a holyroller and claims Christian affiliation is either an evangelical or a mormon (whether they are right or wrong)."

Now you've lost me. Unless you're being sarcastic, which I'm beginning to suspect....

[Theo]

Decendence from a common ancestor is perfectly compatible with Christianity. However, this is not true if one holds to the literal inerrancy of the Bible.

I can't see how an even non-literal reading of Genesis 1-3 (and Jesus' reinforcement of that account) can support your thesis that Darwinistic evolution and Christianity are compatible. Consider, for example, the term "kind" used in Genesis. Explicitly incompatible with Darwin's theory.

Believe (even loosely) the Bible. Or believe Darwin. You really can't believe both.