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
No. I do however think this particular reference is. I could care less who it came from, I still think it's wrong.
Yes, a quote from a Darwinist is considered evidence. I made no qualitative judgment.
You did when you said that this is not connected to the conclusions of the author. It cannot simultaneously be held as evidence in support of his assertions and totally unconnected to them.
What "statement" are you talking about? One I neither made not support?
I've take issue with the following statement made by the author of the article- "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".
I've never claimed you made it. You've avoided endorsing or challenging it outright but you have consistently challenged both the questions and arguments I have in opposition to it, and my qualifications and right to do so. Is your problem with my opinion, or with my assuming the right to express it?
Yes but you implied I said or defended this statement - which I do not - you are wrong.
If you're not defending it, why are you attacking me for questioning it?
Why not present quotes (supporting evidence) with your accusations?
My "accusations" are that the author does not appear to have sufficient evidence to support his assertions, and the logical consequences of the conclusions. The "supporting evidence" for my argument is the absence of evidence in the article. What kind of "quotes" do you think I need to provide?
Nonsense. I just pointed out he did provide some sort of supporting evidence for his statement - that is all I said. I am not supporting the statement of the author.
It cannot simultaneously be held as evidence in support of his assertions and totally unconnected to them.
You are not making sense now. We were talking evidence for the positions in the article - not line by line comparisons. The author presented evidence and then took a position nine paragraphs later (the paragraphs all contain what the author seems to think is support for his position) - the totality of the evidence is used for the position. You tried to claim the conclusion had a one-to-one relationship with that one piece of evidence - you were wrong.
You really do like to pick the nit
I think it was because some of your statements were factually incorrect.
Here is the topic of this sub-thread (paraphrased):
Evo: This aricle is full of lies
LVD: Please show us these lies
Evo: "Evolution is not anti-religion"
LVD: That is an invalid position based on information in the article.
Because your questioning was illogical. Question all you want just try not to use fallacious logic.
Apparently I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I assumed it was to discuss the content of the article. Apparently it is actually just supposed to be flame bait in yet another battle in the crevo wars.
You are amazing. Can you read?
The topic of the thread is the article - some Evo's claim it is full of lies but have failed to produce evidence of one lie. That topic directly relates to the article. My position is the evidence provided by the Evo side of the debate was illogical and invalid. Please explain why you think that has nothing to do with the content of the article (unless this was meant to be another empty accusation)
Apparently it is actually just supposed to be flame bait in yet another battle in the crevo wars.
Now you are just making a fool out of yourself.
The author makes statements with no apparent supporting evidence. What is illogical about questioning what those statements are based on?
The Gould quote is evidence whether you like it or not.
And you equate my asking for what evidence he has to back up his statements with claiming his statements are a lie?
You are not the only person in this thread.
Strangely, none of your replies to me have been directed to anyone else.
Since you don't seem to be able to say specifically what it is about my question you disagree with, have you simply decided to irritate me as some kind of demonstration to everyone else?
So? You jumped into the middle of the thread - I merely replied to your statements. My point was you are not the only one on the Evo side that is talking positions so all statements do not necessarily apply to you personally.
Since you don't seem to be able to say specifically what it is about my question you disagree with you disagree with
Which question are you talking about now?
BTW: how does one disagree with a question?
have you simply decided to irritate me as some kind of demonstration to everyone else?
Like I said - it is not all about you.
Bozo was singular.
And of course you're not a creo. No one is. LOL
And I'm done with you.
You started the attacks.
LVD claims he's not a creo. :)
I'm one... I KNOW God exists, beyond that, I don't know if he has a plan or not.
Yes.
Oh! You got me - although it was two days ago.
OK, here we go:
Would you feel comfortable having surgery if your anesthesiologist started talking about the aliens who are stealing his thoughts?
No.
So?
Did Wells claim his thoughts were being stolen?
Did not
Did not
Did not
Do you have a point?
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.