Why Darwinism Is Doomed

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

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.

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'm still waiting for a list of Hindu, Buddist, Athiest, and muslim scientists to sign on that ID or Creationism is backed by scientific fact.

Muslim scholar Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal ( PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences), the editor of the journal Islam & Science, is on the list of 600 Scientists who have signed on to the Dissent from Darwin organized by the Discovery Institute.

See also this paper from a Zoology professor at a Pakistani College --- Prof. Abdul Majid, entitled -- THE MUSLIM RESPONSES TO EVOLUTION :

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm

In this book, he catalogs a list of Muslim scientists/scholars who refute evolution.

I would not depend on Muslims ( even scientists ) to be allies of Darwinists if I were you. A lot of them hold to a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis.

For Jewish Scientists who believe in the Harmony between the Bible and Science, you might want to read Gerald Schroeder's book --- Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible.

Go to Amazon to see a review.

Of course, the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design Movement has Jewish Scientists who support their movement.

I am not familiar with most Hindu or Buddhist Scientists and their view of Intelligent Design. I have been to India once, in the 1980's and have attended some lectures in New Delhi.

The closest people who believe in some sort of intelligence in origin of life on earth are probably Hindu Scientists such as Award winning Astrophyscist, Chandra Wickarmasinghe and Jayant Narlikar ( whose early education was at the Banaras Hindu University, India's leading astrophycist), who together with Sir Fred Hoyle, express doubt in the Big Bang model of the origin of the Universe and postulates that life on earth might have been seeded from outer space by intelligent directed panspermia ( I have heard Narlikar's lecture once when I visited India in the 1980's ).

Both of these Indians were influenced greatly by their teacher, Sir Fred Hoyle.

In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:

"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

Of course men like Richard Dawkins oppose their views ( see his book -- THE BLIND WATCHMAKER), and so, the debate goes on...

I didn't need to read your website, because my points were not specific, but metaphysical / philosophical.

All the same, I'll assume you are familiar with some of the facts discussed there.

Me: the hypothetical designer is not a good engineer.

You: . Is the designer primarily an engineer at all?

Primarily? Who knows? But I would say that engineering is one aspect of "intelligent" design. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, has never been justified on any rational design basis; it's simply and unambiguously a stupid design.

2. If so, was the designer acting IN that capacity when making life-forms as we know them?

If one claims that the design is intelligent, then yes, the aesthetics of engineering enter into it. Particularly using as few parts/materials as possible, not over-complicating things. Evolution predicts a Rube Goldberg sort of "design", which is what we find in the examples I cited.

3. Do the life forms as we know them accurately reflect the original designs? ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.")

Who knows? What bearing does this have on the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

a. What if the designer made life forms and walked away (semi-Deist view) and subsequent evolution has screwed stuff up?

Has no bearing on the recurrent laryngeal nerve; it's invariant across all the vertebrates.

b. What if other supernatural agents have corrupted things since the original design?

Purely idle speculation in the absence of evidence. Again, has no bearing on the routing of nerves.

c. What if the original design was for conditions far different than we have now?

See above re: the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The evolutionary explanation for its circuitous path is that in fish the heart is much further forward than it is in tetrapods. In the embryo, the nerve starts out OK, then is constrained by the topology of it and the aorta as the heart and aorta move away from the laryngeal area.

d. If the designer made life forms as an engineer, and you think present conditions reflect the environment for which they were designed, AND there was no skulduggery since then, do you know the intended purposes for the life forms as they were designed, both ultimate and proximate? Think of some of the engineering school challenges to build vehicles to get ultra-high gas mileage...I bet they'd *suck* on crash-test ratings. But they weren't trying for safety anyway. Or for another example, "Build a working suspension bridge entirely out of toothpicks" or "Design and build a working electric car for under $1000".

How about simply "connect the brain stem to the larynx"? Or, "connect in a way that won't lead to anomalies after evolution has moved things around"?

e. Are these the final designs or is the earth a workshop or proving ground where various ideas are beta tested, or prototypes made for "proof of concept" ?

More idle speculation, in the complete absence of any evidence for it.

Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.

And no, I don't consider this nitpicking. Some of the objections are a hat tip to Christian theology, since the complaint is that ID is Christian creationism in drag; if you think this, than it is only fair to at least raise an eyebrow towards other purported factors which are brought in by Christian theology. And the other objections are something most any competent project manager would consider when beginning an engineering project.

None of your apologetic says a thing about how any competent intelligence could design the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Keep in mind the nerve is a stand-in for hundreds of examples of bad design. Easy to explain in evolution, not so easy to reconcile with competence.

Beef Stroganoff and a glas of Chenin Blanc. Now I'm feeling mellow. And "Mythbusters" is playing in the background.

g_w: Is the designer primarily an engineer at all?

v_a:Primarily? Who knows? But I would say that engineering is one aspect of "intelligent" design. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, has never been justified on any rational design basis; it's simply and unambiguously a stupid design.

g_w_2: 1st misunderstanding. What I was trying to imply was that maybe the designer was not trying to engineer anything (in the sense of efficiency, elegance, etc.) but was perhaps trying aesthetic or artistic taste. According to the designer's own standards.

g_w: If so, was the designer acting IN that capacity when making life-forms as we know them?

g_w_2: You *appear* to be making a couple of assumptions here, which, though reasonable, remain arbitrary. For all you know, the designer put in elements like the recurrent laryngeal nerve as a kind of "flourish" or signature; or like the tail fins on a 1950's-era chevy. You are implicitly assuming that everything that is there, was put there with an explicit function. Supposedly intelligent designers (but here opinions may differ) also created the Edsel. :-)

And for that matter, there's always Picasso.

g_w: Do the life forms as we know them accurately reflect the original designs? ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.")

Who knows? What bearing does this have on the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

If the original design was for vastly different conditions, things which now look anomalous might have made sense at the time.

g_w:What if the designer made life forms and walked away (semi-Deist view) and subsequent evolution has screwed stuff up?

v_a:Has no bearing on the recurrent laryngeal nerve; it's invariant across all the vertebrates.

g_w_2: That depends on what point in the process the designer walked away; for example, with invertebrates.

g_w:What if other supernatural agents have corrupted things since the original design?

v_a:Purely idle speculation in the absence of evidence. Again, has no bearing on the routing of nerves.

g_w_2: No more idle speculation than assuming that an intelligent designer was necessarily guided primarily by notions of efficiency; or assuming (say) vestigial hind leg buds in seagoing mammals is a mistake, instead of a 'tip of the hat' in honor of another designer's work.

But for some reason, you appear to ignore that your assumption that an intelligent designer is motivated by efficiency and economy is ITSELF an assumption. On certain presuppositions, it is defensible; but you have no way of 'checking' those presuppositions.

g_w: What if the original design was for conditions far different than we have now?

v_a:See above re: the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The evolutionary explanation for its circuitous path is that in fish the heart is much further forward than it is in tetrapods. In the embryo, the nerve starts out OK, then is constrained by the topology of it and the aorta as the heart and aorta move away from the laryngeal area.

That raises an entirely different issue of the "ontology recapitulates philogeny" type; and an interesting observation from software engineering. Think of class inheritance. It may be that, for the sake of software re-engineering, you may "kludge" a subclass from a higher-level class, even though it involves certain inconveniences, because of certain other advantages related to disk space, not wanting to add new class libraries, etc.

What you point out about the laryngeal nerve being "evolutionary" since the heart in fish is far forward, and as the embryonic development differs from species to species, could also be taken as an economy of "design"--using a standard template for embryonic development.

Not insisting this is the case, but without getting to discuss with the designer, you won't always see why things were done.

Off-topic segue...Urban legend has it that when a Cuban pilot defected to Florida with a Russian MiG during the Cold War, the US military engineers were *astounded* at how carefully the plane had been built, apparently with the goal of making it impervious to EMP. (Vaccuum tubes etc. instead of solid-state electronics, and so on.) So this figured into US estimates of the Soviet willingness to engage in nuclear war. As it turns out, after the Cold War ended, we found out the *real* reason for the primitive electronics: the Soviet electronics industry was not able to make enough of the advanced parts to high enough tolerance to be reliable for military use. So instead, they used a brute-force approach with low-tech.

Point being, what might seem *obvious* on inspection of a design after the fact, might be an *artefact* of completely different design goals or constraints.

g_w:If the designer made life forms as an engineer, and you think present conditions reflect the environment for which they were designed, AND there was no skulduggery since then, do you know the intended purposes for the life forms as they were designed, both ultimate and proximate? Think of some of the engineering school challenges to build vehicles to get ultra-high gas mileage...I bet they'd *suck* on crash-test ratings. But they weren't trying for safety anyway. Or for another example, "Build a working suspension bridge entirely out of toothpicks" or "Design and build a working electric car for under $1000".

v_a:How about simply "connect the brain stem to the larynx"? Or, "connect in a way that won't lead to anomalies after evolution has moved things around"?

g_w_2: See above. Maybe the designer liked the fetal development sequence so much, it was decided to keep the essentials of the process, regardless of the resultant (minor) anomalies.

g_w:Are these the final designs or is the earth a workshop or proving ground where various ideas are beta tested, or prototypes made for "proof of concept" ?

v_a:More idle speculation, in the complete absence of any evidence for it.

g_w_2:Not *idle* speculation, as it presents a plausible alternative to your strawman of "if it doesn't make sense to the criteria *I* subscribe to, as an elegant solution, it CANNOT have been the result of design."

v_a: None of your apologetic says a thing about how any competent intelligence could design the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Keep in mind the nerve is a stand-in for hundreds of examples of bad design. Easy to explain in evolution, not so easy to reconcile with competence.

g_w_2: Not necessarily true. Nice swashbuckling type debate points, but you are *assuming* that your notions of compactness and elegance are the same ones the intelligent designer had in mind. Yes, it is a *reasonable* assumption, and one that can be defended as a reasonable assumption ("why would an engineer want to do it like that? it would be more elegant, economical, etc. to do it like this instead."). But it remains an assumption, until you know what trade-offs and effects the designer had in mind.

That is why I said you had been *jumping to conclusions*...

Cheers!

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.

STOP already!