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
Fish did not magically turn into mammals. That sounds like some kind of creationist fantasy.
Vertebrates evolved into tetrapods and then amniotes which spawned mammals. there is tons of evidence to support this.
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/hall_tour/spectrum/flash/
Fashions change. Dogmas pass. I remember when science was telling us with utmost confidence that tomatoes are bad for one's health. Communism is the ultimate destiny of the human society. What is it that you wanted to do to your mother Oedepus? Science: 10% of population is homersexual. Science: Margaret Mead is the Man! Science: the Turin Shroud is from the XIV century. No, wait: science: the Turin Shroud is from the I century. Science knows...
What "lie" is exposed?
Do you actually believe a personal attack is an intellectual retort?
You have a problem with science?
I agree with you that Gould was absolutely wrong.
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.
Is this the usual and customary way to start a scholarly Discussion of a science topic?
Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce? The evo logic seems flimsy.
I believe it is hinnies - jennies are female donkeys
FINISH HIM!
Psst, psst. evolution.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that evos are having all the abortions.
Most of them end up as bitter atheists.
What do you claim is invalid or "un-shcolarly" about the statement and was it scholarly for you to retort with ONLY a person attack (with a helping of mind-reading)
Are you big on the "monkey see, monkey do" philosophy of life?
SHUT UP, EVERYONE! THE MISSING LINK HAS BEEN FOUND! DARWIN HAS BEEN VINDICATED!!!
Or maybe a mudskipper was always a mudskipper?....
Accepting reality shouldn't damn you.
Agreed. Of course, I don't know of anyone who believes that Straw Man.
At the same time, I have to disagree with your argument that "kind" merely refers to "animal" or "plant" (large categories). Scripture is clear (as I mentioned earlier) that there were a variety of "kinds" of "animals," for example....
ALWAYS ALWAYS include sarcasm tags when dealing with this issue.
You are representing conservatism to lurkers.
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.