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
Now, if Darwinism had anything to do with conservatism, you might have a point.
Then "Darwinism" can't be the issue either, since it's only incompatible with Christianity (and/or theism in general) by the stipulative, gratuitous and utterly ahistorical definition contrived by the ID types.
Their definition of "Darwinism" has nothing to do with understanding of the term by self-described "Darwinists". It's exactly like stipulating that pro-lifers are, by definition, religious extremists. It completely ignores notable Darwinists like R.A. Fisher, Francisco Ayala, Ken Miller, Simon Conway Morris, etc, who were or are theists. In fact all the preceding are professing Christians specifically.
So you claim you know Jonathan Wells metal faculties - how did you gain this knowledge? Have you ever met this man? Did you evaluate him? What is your Ph.D. in?
We all know you likely know absolutely nothing about his mental faculties - your statement is just poor cover for your bigoted statement
100 years from now, our descendants will all be living in a North American caliphate, and this silly little debate won't be permitted.
It's propaganda.
Evolution certainly won't be taught. But at least we'll all be religious.
What difference does it make if it was plural or not - I did not direct the comment at any person therefore it can not be a personal attack.
If I say "Watch out for the idiots" - is that a personal attack? ...only if you think you are an idiot.
They're also separate species. I don't get your point. Whether they can't, or simply don't, or even if they do but hybrids are sterile, of if they do with sufficient rarity that population genotypes are unaffected, etc, whatever. In all these cases their populations are reproductively isolated.
"Define 'Christianity.'"
St. Paul teaches us in Galatians that Christianity is the acceptance of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, that he died for our sins, and, through the power of God, defeated death, thereby giving the promise of eternal life to all those who accept that gift.
In Romans and other letters, St. Paul instructs us not to bicker about the denominational details (which is basically anything more than the first paragraph).
Yeap.
So why do Evo's enter cosmology debates?
Um, we don't *know* that light took a 'very long time' to reach us.
We calculate that it did based on an *assumption* that the speed of light is unchanged over time. In some cases, we add that *assumption* to another *assumption* that redshift equals distance for even older age calculations.
This quite a different thing than 'knowing'.
Well I am guessing you have not reproduced with Pussy Cat Dolls (a group) (even though you could) - me neither - we are a group - what do you want to call out species?
....jeeze, it's a joke - lighten up.
Enough of the unsupported accusations - can you explain what you think I took out of context rather than spew personal insults?
So porn is completely compatible with Chrisianity too? I think we need a more definitive answer, although I agree with you. Maybe the wrong question is being asked.
How about this, "define, based on what is in the Bible Christianities teaching about the origin of life."
And then this: "Does the Bible specifically say that types of living things were made "as is" or does it give 'wiggle room' for the idea that some species came from others?"
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
His farse goes marching on.
Mine eyes have seen the ramblings of a moron PhD
He was posted in the pages of the wing nut daily site
A real nut case and bozo he did surly turn out to be
A whack job sure is he
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
His farse goes marching on.
from the institute where morons gather screachings were a heard
They were bothered by the judges and the first Amendment of
The Bill of Rights the Country was a founded on before
Their heads they did explode
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
His farse goes marching on.
The evolution theory that the scientists did propose
Was backed by evidence so good the institute was formed
to whine and scream and throw the tantrums widely heard right know
It's BS through and through
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
Glory glory hallelujah
His BS flies right on.
You are a real blow-hard. I went back to the post of which you claim I took you out of context - you are so full of it - I quoted the entire paragraph.
Lets review:
#160
mugs99: "I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof. Do you have that proof?"
LVD: "God by definition is a matter of faith - I think you are barking up the wrong tree"
If sure looks like you are the one being dishonest because I clearly did not take your statement out of context.
Evo's take personal insults to a whole new level.
Evo Strategy: if you can't intellectually challenge someone's positions - you can always spew personal insults (and they are so cute when you put them into a little song, like a preschooler)
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.