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
I haven't read the book, but Betty Boop has. Perhaps she'd care to respond.
Can you give me an example of information that is not instantiated?
Good post.
Placemarker
God created all the languages (see tower of Babel) so I firmly believe that while minor things can be lost in translation nothing which God has wanted mankind to know has been lacking throughout the ages. He states that His laws are written on our hearts - therefore no matter the interpretation of the 10 commandments mankind knows intuitively not to steal, kill, lie, dishonor God nor parents, etc.
Does it really matter what scholars and experts say or doesn't the clear language in the Bible define a literal day ('there was evening and there was morning')?
Here's something to simplify it even more. My late uncle - John - was mentally retarded from birth and never exceeded the intellectual capacity of a 5-6 year old yet he heard enough of the Bible and believed in his heart that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and accepted Him as his Lord and Saviour. The Bible is also clear that when the innocent die - those not aware of their sins, those who have not reached a mental age of accountability regardless of their physical age - go directly to be with God in heaven. John was 49 years old when he died and only God could know if he truly reached a mental age of accountability. I know of and have seen very many 6-8 year old children confess faith in Jesus Christ - including my own adopted son, my own biological daughter, and 2 more step-children who I love as much as my own kids. We all need to come to Christ with awe and reverence and child-like faith.
Intellect can be a hindrance and detriment if you allow 'pride to go before the fall'...
You should really think about going into the field of comedy. You have a gift to make people gag, I mean, laugh.
It's interesting that we have vast stores of information on the process of that creation. From this:
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice.
to this:
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen. Giue vs this day our daily bread. And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.
to this:
Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
And, of course there's all those Italians still speaking Latin.
Your story makes our point: The Bible is a spiritual text. It does indeed write on the heart aboud how to live your life. I agree with you that a childlike approach to God and Jesus is probably the best way to approach Him.
But when attempting to use a spiritual manual as a scientific text, you then have to look at the exact text and determine if it has scientific heft.
To do that you need to know EXACTLY what was said and the proper context within which it was said.
"Ask, and ye shall ignore"
Elsie's a credit to his side.
I am actually starting to lean back and enjoy Elsie's one liners.
They don't any particular intellectual damage and are some times quite witty.
And, as you say, he shines a light.
Brightest bulb in the pack.
Did you ever read "Good News?" (the "standard colloquial English" Bible). I think that one went:
"Hey Dad, you are #1. Whatever you want, you got. Forgive me when do bad and forgive them what does bad to me. Help me not to screw up and keep me away from bad dudes. You the Man."
And this is NOT sacrilege, but a reasonable modern English restatement of this passage.
I think the problem with his side is that, in the end, all questions are rhetorical because all answers are known.
Like the one the Grinch had to replace.
Insulting me does not demonstrate, to any degree, that your claims are correct.
That must be why he sent me off for an hour to find stuff he asked for, and then never responded.
I could live with his beliefs if he were a gentleman.
I wasn't insulting you. I was complimenting you.
Having fun, little spammer?...its amusing to watch you tho..you are nothing, if not predictable...no reasonable discussion comes from you, just lots of spam...we know you will pop up again, and spam with the same silly questions...continue on, I am sure you will...
That's only when he's wearing his theologian's hat. Newton could be the same way.
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.