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 am comfortable in taking a straightforward understanding of the passages (of which most are not from Genesis).
I hate to say this but you sound just like a Democrat explaining away the straightforward reading of the constitution. "It is a living Document that changes with our understanding of reality. You stupid redneck Republicans can't understand the subtleties of English Statesmen. Nuanced. This lawyer believes this and that lawyer believes that....It's subject to personal interpretation..."
There have been multitudes of people throughout history who have taken the same approach with the Bible; therefore we have such a wide array of groups with their opinions. I would suggest strict constructionism and abiding by the basic laws of hermeneutics.
But your trying to tie a more general (and appropriate) interpretation of Genesis with somehow not "knowing" Christ is egotistical in the least.
Most people realize that the Bible contains a record of Jesus Christ's teachings. Once a person places their faith in Jesus, it makes perfect sense to become intimately familiar with His teachings. My admonition came from all over the Scriptures, not only from Genesis. In fact, the first passage was from the New Testament by Jesus Christ Himself.
Many people continue to criticize a straightforward reading of Genesis, but become disturbed when passages throughout the Old & New Testament confirm the straightforward meaning is the correct one. This eliminates their ability to say things like "Genesis is not a science text, or Genesis has been interpreted thousands of different ways, or Genesis is allegorical". It becomes frusterating when one has to admit that the entire scripture does not fit in with the strictly materialistic perspective most modern scientists have put their faith in.
"You're right. A lot of them prefer a date much closer to 6,000 years."
And some of us dropped that steaming pile when our Pastors could not explain away Dinosaurs.
"A propos of this, DC Talk's Colored People video"
Nice video, great message.
And some of us dropped that steaming pile when our Pastors could not explain away Dinosaurs.
Its easier to let science do the dating. They are getting pretty good at it.
As an aside, I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and I want my results to be as accurate as possible! I don't know all the answers, and sometimes I get dates back I can't explain. Then its time for more research, more dates, to try to figure it all out. I have done ten or even twenty additional dates to figure out what the patterns are when they get complex.
They say, if you have one date you know everything, but if you have two you aren't so sure. Sometimes you need 30 or 60 to have a good idea of what happened.
And, a good number of those dates are older than 6,000 years.
Despite my earlier post about Pastors and Dinosaurs...I AM a born again Christian, studying to become a Pastor. I simply do not buy the "young earth" idea.
Good for you! I wish you luck in your studies.
Good night!
I did. I thought it shocking that you would "abandon" such a good article. :)
The koran was not handed down by "allah" (A rock) directly to man. Every bit of it is aledged to have come out of Mohammads mouth, via a "angel" who beat him up and scared the crap out of him at first, then after he had mental fits and afterwards "recited" the Koran (and it was always about something to get Mohammad out of a jam). NONE of it was written down at the time. Nor was Arabic even a written language during Mohammads life. It was said that Omar collected all the Koranic sayings which were remembered by followers oraly and then written down long after Mohammads death, but there is not even evidence of that.
The first and only record of Mohammads life and saying was first written by Ishaq 180 years after Mohammad was dead. It's most probable that the first Koran was written from this work, which was then edited by Hisham and Tabari,Who edited some nasty crap out (and they admit it). This is the first and ONLY record of Mohammads life and sayings.
It was further edited and revised by Bukhari and his student,Muslim centuries later.
The Bible on the otherhand, was the inspired word of God giveninto the Prophets, all who could pass the prophetic test, something Mohammad could never do. he was an evil murdering pedophile, not a prophet.
The Koran is full of fables and myths that were around long before Mohammad came along. Being illiterate and not very smart, mohammad didn't know what were jewish fables and local sabian folklore and what was written in the bible and gospel,
so he mistakenly "recited' them into the koran.
The Koran is inspired by Mohammad, or if you insist, a rock named allah, which is the name of "the rock most high" that the pagan arabs called "allah".
Ironically, it helped confirm the ToE. See, Piltdown went against Darwin's prediction that humans evolved in Africa. When the real transitionals started being found in Africa and Asia in the 1920s, Piltdown became a real anomaly - it was in the wrong place, and its mosaic of human-like and ape-like features contradicted the other fossils. When it was finally shown to be a fake, no-one was really surprised. As usual, Darwin was vindicated in one of his predictions.
BTW, Nathan, I think there's sufficient evidence now to demonstrate that Mohammad, as he is portrayed in the Koran and the Hadiths, never really existed.
It also contains ancient stories that were around long before the Sumerians invented writing or Abram of Ur became enlightened.
The claim made by Islam regarding the Koran is that it exists in Heaven, and a "copy" was recited to Mohammad who, in turn, recited it to humanity. At the same time it contains histories, culture and Mohammad's most notable (and non prophetic) sermons.
These books are what they are.
BTW, don't get too hung up on the "rock" thing ~ one division of Christianity has some thoughts on the matter regarding the "rock" which Jesus made the foundation of His church, and they are a tad sensitive on the matter.
That the Arabs use the same "root word" for rock, and God, and Moon is irrelevant. Give you an example, look at the word "table". Now, use it as "table", "tablecloth", and "tablesaw". Each of these three items is vastly different. The Arabic language, like others, uses words in various forms to mean different things.
Well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Genesis is not a scientific text AND Genesis is allegorical. It also is interpreted different ways from the original language, so unless you are reading in the original you are already getting an interpretation. The USC was written in English and thus is available as plain text. It wasn't trying to explain God and the beginning of the Universe to semi-literate near-savages.
It becomes frusterating when one has to admit that the entire scripture does not fit in with the strictly materialistic perspective most modern scientists have put their faith in.
Yeah. And lets not forget those materialists over there at the Catholic Church.
You don't have a shoe to stand on. This is about YOUR interpretation, that is all.
Johnatnan Wells is a Moonie. He studied biology for the sole purpose of arguing against evolution. He did not study biology to learn about it or contribute to it, but only to find clever sounding sound bites to use against it.
Now if you want to have and actual discussion -- which I will be happy to engage in -- go back to the original article, summarize what you think is its best single point, and post it.
We will discuss one point at a time. I promise not to engage in name calling as long as we stick to to the points made in the article.
Did you even read what ExtremeUnction wrote to me? He implied that Christians don't think, and that I should leave FR if I value Scripture. *That* anti-Christian sentiment should be foreign to FR, whether it's in a thread about Darwinism or Islam.
How about if you post a link, or at least a post number?
http://www.y-zine.com/yorigins.htm
Since NO one really knows- only the dopes are afraid of any idea that opposes their orthodoxy.
For those secure in their faith, it DOESN'T matter.
If you do not agree that psychological traits can be selected for, then it is you who do not understand genetics. There are many, many well documented examples of behaviors and psychological factors that are heritable. There is no reason to believe that some of those heritable factors could not influence what kinds of beliefs a person tends to form.
I am not saying there is one single gene responsible for scientific rationality, but there could easily be complex interactions of genes that influence what kinds of beliefs a person is more likely to be swayed by and hold. And it is clear from evolutionary theory that selective pressure increases some forms of behavior and decreases others, and behavior is clearly tied to beliefs in some fashion. For example, most people don't believe it's a good idea to kill their children right before they reach childbearing age. People who were more susceptible to those kinds of ideas are heavily selected against. Some people do murder their own children, but it is at the level of random mutations, less than about 1 in 500. Selective pressure can drive any trait down to that level, but not much below that level. (This is a broad generalization. Some negative traits can be driven down to about 1 in 2000 or even less, and some are as frequent as 1 in 250 if the genes involved are fragile and more prone to mutation.)
Initially, I made this argument partially as tongue in cheek. It is probably true that there is a correlation between belief in darwninism and a belief that abortion is acceptable, but in reality there are plenty of people who are against abortion yet do believe in darwinism (myself included).
In addition, there may be survival benefits of believing in Darwinism (although I would argue they would be very slight benefits, if any). It is hard to imagine there would be any significant survival advantage to being pro-abortion, however. You would have to believe that having abortions would eventually increase fecundity among the people who have abortions. I think that's a stretch, I would find it hard to believe. Perhaps there could be an advantage if a person was pro-abortion publically, but privately would never have an abortion. That way, they would be promoting the destruction of other people's genes while preserving their own. But I think this would be a very small minority of people who believe in abortion.
Anyway, from that point of view, I would say that my argument really applies more to abortion itself, since you could have selective pressures that just apply toward attitudes regarding abortions that do not affect attitudes about darwinism.
So let me amend it: Because people who believe in abortion are more likely to have abortions or encourage abortions by their offspring, and because even a tiny selective pressure (1% is enough) is sufficient to drive a trait down to near extinction (1 in a 500 or so), therefore abortion itself guarantees that more and more people will oppose abortion in successive generations. Any inherited psychological (or other) trait that tends to make people oppose abortion will be selected for.
We are only in about the second generation since Roe v. Wade, but already the polling trends clearly show more and more young people oppose abortion. Coincidence? Perhaps. We'll be more sure in another 2 or 3 generations. But the fact that many thousands of children of parents who believed in abortion failed to be born could certainly change the numbers, no?
Do you still believe my logic is twisted? Maybe before you accuse people of not understanding something, you should take into account that they could be so well-versed in the field and their understanding so surpasses your own that you do not even recognize the truth of it.
post 15.
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.