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

[Gargantua]

"My statement was a mistake..."

Your admission, while candid, does not lend credibility to your assertions. Moreover, your repeated linguistic malaprop and tortured grammar, when viewed alongside your admitted conceptual error, paint you more as an opinionated poseur rather than an informed academic.

I'll reserve the balance of my time, leaving you the hollow pleasure of pretending to debate the dullards who are sucked in by your pointless, palsied, and errant pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship.

Remember, nothing less than SPF 80. Don't leave Earth without it.

;-/

[Dimensio]

Your admission, while candid, does not lend credibility to your assertions.

Attacking me for my admitted error does not demonstrate that your false claims are accurate.

[taxesareforever]

No it's not. Let me see you state that your support of evolutionary theory is an error.

[aNYCguy]

Moreover, your repeated linguistic malaprop and tortured grammar, when viewed alongside your admitted conceptual error, paint you more as an opinionated poseur rather than an informed academic. I'll reserve the balance of my time, leaving you the hollow pleasure of pretending to debate the dullards who are sucked in by your pointless, palsied, and errant pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship.

I think my irony meter just broke.

[GourmetDan]

You need to go back to the post you referenced. I clearly outlined my position there.

You have no evidence that the universe is acentric. You have a belief.

And an inability to understand what 'no physical significance' means.

[Dimensio]

Let me see you state that your support of evolutionary theory is an error.

Why should I do that when I have no reason to believe that it is in error? You are retroactively altering your claim, which is not an honest action.

[SirLinksalot]

So what's your point? That's just a fancy statement of the anthropic principle, something dreamed up by physicists.

My point ? Simple --- It is NOT BEYOND the realm of science to postulate INTELLIGENT CAUSES FOR LIFE.

[js1138]

My point ? Simple --- It is NOT BEYOND the realm of science to postulate INTELLIGENT CAUSES FOR LIFE.

And this leads to what kind of research? Biochemical research to find a naturalistic path, or navel gazing?

[SirLinksalot]

The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic.

Is it now ?

There still exists arguments over Darwinian evolution (evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations) because we have practically no actual examples of speciation (new species forming) ever been observed.

Hence, we really have no way of knowing for sure whether Darwin had the right idea. THAT is the point of Jonathan Well's argument ( see this thread for instance ).

I have to say that the Darwinist is taking a great deal on faith. And those Darwinists who also happen to be fanatics by temperament ( see for instance Richard Dawkins) behave just as other fanatics do when they think they have found certainty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you. But sadly, there are a lot of them and Dawkins is simply one of those who act like the so called "fundamentalists" so many Darwinians decry. The constraint being that stochastic variations have to survive and reproduce. The question of original life cannot be settled by sitting on your ass and thinking about it. Its a matter for research.

[js1138]

My point ? Simple --- It is NOT BEYOND the realm of science to postulate INTELLIGENT CAUSES FOR LIFE.

If you accept Denton's point of view, I have no argument. He accepts naturalism and empiricism in all aspects of scientific investigation. Including biogenesis.

[SirLinksalot]

And this leads to what kind of research? Biochemical research to find a naturalistic path, or navel gazing?

It leads to the same kind of research we can do today.

The difference being the CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM IT. Michael Behe being an ID supporter, is not stopped from doing his research and publishing his work in Scientific journals.

There are numerous efforts underway in labs to do just this. The effort to identify the minimum number of genes to support an independent single-cell organism is an area of on-going research.

If mankind succeeds in the afore mentioned effort to create an artificial cell, would that not strengthen the design inference (since we could then say unequivocally that the only force demostrated to be capable of generating life is intelligence)?

[js1138]

Personalities don't really matter. Science routes around fanatics and bullies the way the Internet routes around point failures.

The value of any idea in science is proportional to the quality of the research it suggests.

[SirLinksalot]

If you accept Denton's point of view, I have no argument. He accepts naturalism and empiricism in all aspects of scientific investigation. Including biogenesis.

ALL REASONABLE VIEWS ( INCLUDING DEMBSKI's and Behe's ) must be considered. That includes the possibility of intelligence actually producing life.

[SirLinksalot]

Behe specificially stated that astrology would qualify as a "scientific theory" based upon his definition of the term. I have seen no one suggest that he accepts astrology, but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.

As long as you do not suggest that he believes it has to be taught in class, I have no arguments with you. He clearly does not believe it and HE SAID SO TOO in a lecture I attended at Lehigh University.

[freedumb2003]

Your admission, while candid, does not lend credibility to your assertions. Moreover, your repeated linguistic malaprop and tortured grammar, when viewed alongside your admitted conceptual error, paint you more as an opinionated poseur rather than an informed academic. I'll reserve the balance of my time, leaving you the hollow pleasure of pretending to debate the dullards who are sucked in by your pointless, palsied, and errant pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship.

You use your tongue prettier than a 20 dollar whore! That investment in a thesaurus is paying off handsomely.

[js1138]

If mankind succeeds in the afore mentioned effort to create an artificial cell, would that not strengthen the design inference (since we could then say unequivocally that the only force demostrated to be capable of generating life is intelligence)?

If we orbit a satellite, doesn't that strengthen the inference that intelligence is the only force demonstrated to be capable of inserting an object at the precise velocity between falling into a planet and escaping from it?

[SirLinksalot]

The main idea he seems to be saying is that since most Americans don't believe in evolution, it must not be true. So, basically the laws of nature are up for a popular vote like American idol contestants.

Nope, I don't think Wells is saying because a majority believes in something, it is true. I have heard Wells in church debates clearly rejecting the notion of "majority rules" in science. In fact, he cites Galileo and Copernicus as men who were IN THE MINORITY during their time who were eventually proven right.

His point is this --- If Darwinists of Dawkin's influence continue to stifle open exchange of ideas and use their influence to either bad-mouth, suppress, and use the power of government to prevent countering ideas ( like ID for instance ) from being heard, it will not do Darwinism any good in the eyes of the public. The tendency would be for the public to ask --- WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE ?

Well's second point is this --- We cannot compare the 21st century with Galileo's time where few people could even read or write then. Today, we have the internet. People are MORE EDUCATED than they were before ( and by that, I include people worldwide, not only Americans). We have the internet, newpapers and all sorts of media ... to call those who express doubt in Darwinism IGNORAMUSES ( see the many posts in this thread for instance ), is UNCONVINCING to say the least.

If Darwinists want to convince people after over 150 years of presenting their ideas, they have to show good evidence for what they present as true.

I have heard it being argued that “The burden of proof is indeed on the Darwinist to prove Darwinism. However it is also the burden of proof of the IDist to prove design. ”

But is it? Design has always been self evident which is what Darwin and his followers have tried to counter. We could just let them come up with some evidence first, but after a century and a half unconvincing evidence, it has fallen to ID to show us quite precisely how to detect design.

[js1138]

ALL REASONABLE VIEWS ( INCLUDING DEMBSKI's and Behe's ) must be considered. That includes the possibility of intelligence actually producing life.

There are infinite ways of mapping reality, many of them "rational" in the sense that they comport with observed data.

The question of which are to be taken seriously is determined by which produce questions amenable to research.

The question of intelligence producing life is a reasonable one, and biochemists are working on that one. But you should think about the history of science to get some perspective on this. Producing life in the laboratory is a demonstration that supernatural powers are not required. The followup question is, what kind of conditions could be equivalent to the laboratory conditions.

This is analogous to the discovery of natural selection. Darwin observed that human plant and animal breeders could produce dramatic changes in the morphology of populations simply by incremental selection. He then realized that the same kind of incremental selection applied without human intervention.

[js1138]

If Darwinists want to convince people after over 150 years of presenting their ideas, they have to show good evidence for what they present as true.

What is your response to Yockey's assertion that "Darwinism" has been proven beyond doubt? He bases his conclusion on information theory.

[SirLinksalot]

What is your response to Yockey's assertion that "Darwinism" has been proven beyond doubt? He bases his conclusion on information theory.

My response is --- LET THE DEBATE CONTINUE !! It is good for truth seekers.

I refer you to an Australian Scientist's reply to Yockey, here :

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Doubting%20Yockey.pdf

Also, I refer you to this site :

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/notable-book-reviews.html

It says among other things :

----------------------------------

The current issue of Quarterly Review of Biology has a couple of book reviews that are worth looking at.

First, Christoph Adami rips into Hubert Yockey's new book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. Yockey will be familiar to devotees of evolution/creationism disputes because of his endorsement of various probability arguments against naturalistic explanations of the origin of ife. Yockey's arguments are considerably more sophisticated than the ones offered by the creationists, but they are no less wrong for that.

Anyway, Adami is very unimpressed with the present volume:

These are only mild idiosyncrasies compared to the author's serious departures from accepted scientific standards of conduct. To begin with, at least half of the (poorly edited) book is a nearly verbatim copy—including typographical errors—of the author's previous volume, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (1992. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press). This information is disclosed nowhere in the current book. The parts that are new to this volume are a mixture of historical and philosophical notes on origin-of-life research and researchers (in a section entitled The Life of Walther Löb, we learn the names and ages of the four daughters of the electrochemist at the time of his death), and reiterations of the same points already put forth in the older material. Even worse, some literature sources are either changed to conform or falsified. The sequence data for much of the presentation in Chapter 6—unchanged since its 1992 inception—is ostensibly from the Protein Information Resource 2003, but checking with the 1992 book reveals that the source is a 1986 paper. Despite its appearance as rigorous by the use of mathematical jargon, many derivations in this book (all of them already present in the 1992 version) are deeply flawed either mathematically, or by the use of inappropriate biological assumptions, or both. What is most surprising is that such a volume could pass an impartial peer review process. Cambridge University Press would do well to examine the circumstances of this and the previous book's approval and editing process. (Emphasis Added)

Phony rigor to disguise mathematical emptiness? Small wonder creationists like Yockey so much.

The comments about peer review are also well-taken. Passing peer-review is a necessary condition for meriting serious consideration from knowledgeable people. Sadly, it is far from sufficient.

----------------------------------------

I'd say this on the outset ---- He rightly says biological information is non-material.

This statement of course leads to the question, “if biological information is non-material, can it ultimately then have a material source”. ?

I am personally inclined to say NO ( and Philip Johnson seems to agree ).

I have not seen anyone demonstrate mathematically through algorithmic information theory that it would lead to a contradiction to assume material causes create large scale artifacts of specified information.