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
Do you believe the Pentagon was bombed by the US Government, the WTC towers imploded with bombs, and that the moon were landings faked too?
If you really thought so, you wouldn't edit it to make it appear to be asking something it isn't.
I gather you are an expert in liars. I can't understand that since you believe in the lie of evolution. I believe that takes away your expertism in liars.
And that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth.... etc.
Why do people get so worked up about this stuff? There is no conflict between belief in God, and evolution. None.
I am not trying to pick a fight but do you really have knowledge of the fossil history of the mudskipper?
I've raised questions about at least one of his conclusions on this thread, but will re-interate for your benefit.
If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose. If that is the case, then he's implicitly accusing the author(s) of the theory of intentionally construting a fraudulent theory with the specific intent of destroying religion. He's further accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of either being unable to recognize a fraudulent theory when they see one or being complicit in the deception. I seriously question the basis upon which he is able to meke this determination, and find nothing in the article to support such a conclusion.
You are right - I totally misread your question - my bad. I retract (figuratively) my previous comment.
Your position: I just questioned what where he got his degree from has to do with what motivated him to pursue it.
If he got his degrees from a "Moonie" University you might have an argument but he went to UC and UC granted him the Ph.D. so one of the best schools in the country declared that he understood the subject matter and excelled to the point of being granted a Ph.D.
BTW: the topic of this sub-thread is "Evo's dismiss Well's work based on what they think are his motives"
Wells himself has never attributed his pursuit of biology as being divinely inspired, with the objective of using it to refute TToE?
That is not a logical conclusion.
Using you logic:
The Beatles intentionally told Mason to kill people because Mason said (paraphrased) "first and foremost the Beatles' records told us to kill"
How something is used has no direct connection to how it was made.
Why are you directing that comment to me?
You brought up the subject of intentionality by discussing the definition of "lie" -- a false statement, knowingly made for some purpose.
The statement that evolution is anti-religious is a false statement. If you care to discuss this, kindly answer my questions -- posed several times -- on how evolution's relationship to religion is different from that of other sciences that have findings in conflict with a literal reading of the bible. Why is mathematics not anti-science for differing with the Bible on the value of Pi? Why is physics not anti-science for its estimate of the age of the universe? Why is it not anti-science to say the earth moves?
Sorry, the "fat lady" hasn't sung yet.
Because you appear certain that any assumptions about his motives are unfounded and/or erroneous.
In other words, "if you do not agree with my position you are a) a goon, and b) incapable of thinking for yourself."
The air is dripping with arrogance here.
That statement does not make senses. I was not speaking of "intentionality" - I could care less about intention - somebody claimed the Wells piece contained lies and I asked them to point out the lies and reminded them of the definition of lie.
Intention has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is a lie.
Sorry, Billy Jeff doesn't blush - he becomes red in the face from anger though.
It has nothing to do with arrogance. It's about education and those who's minds are hermetically sealed shut operating on low battery power.
And yes, those who subscribe to creationism are incapable of really thinking about the reality of the history of the planet and the universe.
"However, this is not true if one holds to the literal inerrancy of the Bible.:
Please explain what inerrancy of the Bible.
I don't believe in tenure or seniority. Someone who has been a member one hour may add more value than someone here five years.
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.