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
Show me someone who doesn't have an sinful thought once a day. Also, how does a baby sin? Read Psalm 51 and then tell me that you and every human being doesn't sin every day.
That is not what that statement means - it is a qualitative statement - we are debating a quantitative statement from you ("there is no evidence")
"in the eyes of the beholder" means qualitative judgment varies from person to person - not quantitative judgment as you are trying to argue.
“I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing,” Rom. 7:18. Positively, man is inclined only to evil: “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth,” Gen. 8:21. Whatever we desire, think, speak, or do, of ourselves, by the prompting of our own original nature, is “only evil continually,” Gen. 6:5. “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” Rom. 3:12. “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not,” Eccles. 7:20.
I still see nothing there that has the qualities I associate with "evidence". The assesment is based on a qualitative judgement.
you just don't get it...
You are making a quantitative judgment and are trying to support it with qualitative statements. I am guessing you don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative.
Wanna bet?
You are making a quantitative judgment and are trying to support it with qualitative statements. I am guessing you don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative.
"Existence" is a quality, so is "non-existence". The evidence is non-existent. Is that better?
No. The evidence clearly exists, you just don't accept it. Your quantitative statement ("there is no evidence") is clearly false and your opinion of the evidence ("non-existence") is a qualitative statement.
You refused to accept anything but a "qualitative statement", so I gave you one. Apparently you needed that in order to dismiss it.
I will amend my "qualitative" statement about the evidence to something that will give you the implicit agreement that it exists that you want so badly.
The evidence is fraudulent.
3 things for ME to look at to prove YOUR assertion?
Sorry, but that's YOUR responsibility.
Still no 'daily' ;^)
Do you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative?
You can continue to argue apples vs. oranges...with somebody else
We must agree to disagree.
Do you? You claim I have made a "quantitative" assesment of the evidence. I know enough about the difference between qualitative and quantitative to know that you can't make a quantitative assesment of something that doesn't have a quantitative unit of measure.
You've erroneously interpreted "no evidence" to be quantitative when it is not, and cannot be.
So now you are claiming the amount of evidence does not have a quantitative unit of measure - do you realize how silly of a statement you just made.
Like I said, you can dig as deep of a hole as you desire - your arguments lack understanding of the terms - not to mention your statements lack reasoning - you just want to "win"
We will have to agree to disagree.
It's not silly at all. Are you saying it does have a quantitive unit of measure? If so, what is it?
Psst, psst. Point me in the direction of the "perfect" people. That's for you to prove.
Here are the definitions of the words you seem to be having trouble with:
Quantitative: How much evidence - the quantity of evidence
Qualitative: How good the evidence may be - your opinion.
Why don't you look up the words rather than ask me to explain it to you - don't be so intellectually lazy.
You are making a quantitative statement (speaking of the amount of evidence) and then you try to back it up by making qualitative statements (you don't think the quality of the evidence is good) - very illogical.
And what exactly is the unit of measure of evidence that I am expressing a quantity of? You do understand "unit of measure" don't you? You claim that in is inaccurate to say that there is "no evidence" there. If that is the case, perhaps you can tell me exactly how much evidence there is.
I've already agreed to change my assesment from "no evidence" to "non-existent evidence" and then to "fraudulent evidence" to try and find something that suits you. What more do you want?
Whatever the author provides as evidence - is evidence. That is not up to you - you are not in control of the quantitative aspect of somebody else's position. You can provide your opinion - that is the qualitative aspect. Based on your qualitative judgment you can claim you feel the evidence is not evidence at all - this is still a qualitative judgment - you can not change the quantitative aspect unless you rewrite the article.
So you can't tell me how much evidence there is? That's probably because there isn't any. That's what we call a "clue".
Whatever...
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.