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
1
Oh the irony.
I see we are being treated to the standard CR/IDer scintillating displays of logic and argumentation.
No, just the smug lack of humor of some evos. :-)
You must not be familiar with Elsie's humor.
Cheers!
Fast crowd here tonight. You did it!
Good Night.
OK....taking a bow here.
Do I win a price?
Pleasant dreams!!
Pleasant dreams!!
Pleasant dreams!!
No, not all of the evos are trying to answer that. Many of them have either taken a materialistic worldview as a given, assumed (for the nonce) that the existence of God is irrelevant--(if God interferes enough to make Himself known, then I can't count on "good enough" results to make predictions anyway, so I might as well assume "no God" in the meantime), or they are only concerned with the material aspect of things *in the first place*. "Whether of not God exists, I'm not looking at right now. Just consider the juxtabronchial organ secretions in the higher molluscs!"
It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.
Generally yes, unless hitherto unforeseen results cause you to question the whole philosophical underpinnings.
Don't be deceived.
Reg flag in front of a bull. Ask them to engage in more rigorous parsing of their logical positions.
Cheers!
Nighty night.
Closing the lid on things for the night too.
Good night.
It was real funny watching you puzzle as you helped to put us 'over-the-top'.....
That's OK. Many evos are egocentric, so it cancels out! :-)
Cheers!
...oh, and ad hominem placemarker.
LOL! You got me worried, thought you were going to try for the 2000 mark. I'm on the east coast.
'nite.
This and the rest of the post seem to be some of the best-written and well thought out material I have seen on these threads for a long time.
Cheers!
Bill Cosby in the movie Bill Cosby, Himself quoted comedienne Carol Burnett on the pains of childbirth:
Take your bottom lip and pull it up over your head.
Medicine does not overturn the statement--it provides a chemical amelioration of the pain.
Cheers!
You: You are jumping to a lot of conclusions!
The details are left as a proof to the interested lurkers on the thread.
Huh? Did you read the website I linked to?
What's the point of having teeth that never erupt, or hind leg buds that get reabsorbed before birth, or the mis-wired recurrent laryngeal nerve?
Why should some infant marsupials have an egg tooth they never use? Isn't this actualy poor design?
Yes the choice is mine, and not yours....and Gods decision regarding the ultimate fate of me and you and everyone else on earth is HIS decision, not yours...the Bible makes that quite clear as well...
And thats really quite grand...because it shows that your opinion about anothers fate, is meaningless, and with no value at all...God does not consult you, about anothers fate...thankfully He makes that decision on His own...your views are not considered...you opinion is nothing...it does not count...the Bible is also clear about that...
Where doe the green start?
Then post THESE to make your point: not a color spectrum.
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.