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 thought you were sincere.
Next time I know better.
So evos are having abortions because they don't treat their women right?
Okaaaaaay....
Guess you interpretation of "abandon" is different than everyone elses.
Dude,
Where are you getting this stuff. I don't have those passages memorized. I am not trying to impress anyone. Those passages relate specifically to scripture teaching a non-evolutionary beginning to mankind. Don't you agree that it is good to look at the evidence?
I am an admitted irrecoverably flawed individual. My only hope is in the flawless One. He has commissioned me to let others know they are in the same predicament as me. This message tends to tick people off.
If you think so, what are you doing on this thread?
Guess you interpretation of "abandon" is different than everyone elses.
I left the thread for a few hours to get some work done. But there is always some nonsense to rebut, so I just couldn't stay away.
What, did you miss me?
Your posts.
I don't have those passages memorized. I am not trying to impress anyone. Those passages relate specifically to scripture teaching a non-evolutionary beginning to mankind.
But now you admit that 1) You aren't reading the originals so you have no idea what the Scriptures say and 2)the Scriptures are silent on TToE and are subject to interpretation (unless we want to return to YOUR interpretation, but we have covered that, haven't we?)
Don't you agree that it is good to look at the evidence?
Sure. Do you have any? A faith-based text which has been able to spawn hundreds of sects all basing their belief system on a particular interpretation of that text isn't "evidence." Even if I was to concede (which I don't) the Bible as a proper reference, we would still have to deal with which interpretation.
I am an admitted irrecoverably flawed individual. My only hope is in the flawless One. He has commissioned me to let others know they are in the same predicament as me. This message tends to tick people off.
Admitting you are flawed is OK. Not correcting that flaw (in your case, extreme hubris), is NOT OK.
Your message of us all being flawed isn't ticking anyone off. All Christians know they are flawed. Your self-important designation as "flaw-teller" is more quaint (and sad) than off-putting.
But your trying to tie a more general (and appropriate) interpretation of Genesis with somehow not "knowing" Christ is egotistical in the least.
I'll leave you with a classic joke (I hope you'll understand when you read it and apologies [if needed] to my Jewish friends).
Two Rabbis go into the Temple after some serious, serious and extreme Holy reading. The first Rabbi, overtaken with his love and devotion for G-d, prostrates himself and says "Oh Lord! Before you I am NOTHING!"
The second Rabbi, overtaken by his love and devotion, also prostrates himself and says "Oh Lord! Before you I am NOTHING!"
A janitor working in the back of the Temple sees these and hears these Rabbis and, in a moment of pure love, prostates HIMSELF and says "Oh Lord! Before you I am NOTHING!"
The first Rabbi looks at the janitor and then tells the other Rabbi "so look who thinks he's nothing."
So soon -- Jeeze it isn't even the fourth inning ;)
You must be from Los Angeles.
I believe god created evolution.
I said exactly what I meant. Have you a problem with that?
I sure do.
Once again my lengthy post has been outdone by brevity!
I am sure there is a lesson in here for me.
If I can only figure out what it is.
Hmmmmm....
;)
Say What???? ;)
It makes sense when you read the original post!
ohboyohboy! Do we get to see Piltdown Man?! Such is the quality of "proof" of Darwinism...
God created a Universe so incredibly awesome and intricate that if Man investigates millions of years he (man) will just brush the surface. The more we learn, the more astounded we are at the beauty and symmetry of the Universe (and who knows about "other Universes."
And the God who created it all stands OUTSIDE of this Universe and ALL Universes. And this God saw this dust speck of a planet and its people and sent His Son to save us. He could have flicked us out of existence with a thought. Instead He gave us Love and tried to teach us Love through His Word and the words of His Son.
It saddens me that Creationists would limit God so much. They see him as Q or Gandalf writ large. A God they can comprehend and deal with. A very, very small God.
Of course the ID crowd is even worse. They think that God needs to keep reaching in and tweaking and changing things "on the fly" since He didn't really know how things would happen. This little-g God is closer to the "what does god need with a starship" variety.
My God -- the God of Abraham and God the Father -- is capable of anything. He gave us so much. To throw it back in His face by limiting Him is a (sadly ineffective) tantrum.
But your version works (capital G, though).
Well, what is it?
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.