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
One fact that's not often emphasized is that fossils always fit into these gaps. We never see, for example, fossilized pegasi or centaurs. There are plenty between dinosaurs and birds, or reptiles and mammals, but none whatsoever between mammals and birds.
Don't forget Tiktaalik; the ToE was used to predict what to look for and where to dig - yet more confirmation that there's something real behind the theory.
I've concluded, based on his responses to me and others, and his lack of responses to my pointed and specific replies and questions to him, that SoldierDad had his mind made up before he started posting on these threads. He claimed he was open minded, but dismisses all evidence, won't state what evidence would convince him, etc., etc. IOW, the usual package of disingenousness.
No, demonstrably bad design shows that the hypothetical designer is not a good engineer. If human intelligence is able to say that some designs are evidence of intelligence, then that same human intelligence can say that they're evidence of incomepetence.
Because man (woman) cannot explain these seemingly bizare structures, then God cannot exist
Huh? No, it just shows that if these structures were designed, the designer was not a good engineer. It's evidence against the "intelligent" part of ID.
Still doesn't exactly provide any direct evidence of evolution, though, does it?
Are you paying attention? Did you read any of the web site I linked to? It is specifically showing evidence against ID, not evidence for ToE.
So, what's your take on the recurrent laryngeal nerve? The marsupian egg teeth? The platypus teeth that never erupt?
The claim is that the design of living things shows evidence of intelligence. This is showing that some of these designs show signs of stupidity.
Provide a valid alternative scientific theory.
You certainly can have an "opinion." But some opintions are valid and othrs are not.
If your opinion was 1+1=3 you would be called on to support your position.
Your opinion against TToE is the same. You don't get to just blatently assert things and not be called to support them.
And the larger problem is people are calling on our schools to teach our schoolchildren that God says 1+1=3.
That is why we man the logic ramparts. To keep America from dumb itself down even further.
If we can keep people away from willfil ignorance, so much the better.
Evolution is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is.
People are pro- or anti- things.
QED, Antropomorphizing.
By demonstrating to the Left we are willing to substitute religion for science. And demonstrating our complete and total adherence ot willful ignorance because we either don't understand or don't like the conclusions.
Do EVOLUtionist goons make thinking LIBERALs look bad as well??
Ad hominem "rebuttals" also make conservatives look bad.
I see we are being treated to the standard CR/IDer scintillating displays of logic and argumentation.
Ok. I "think" that you are annoying me.
There is no other conclusion. You don't get to say "well, 1+1=3 and that is my opinion." You can have an opinion, but you need to defend it if it deals with science.
400 scientists out of how many hundreds of thousands? Every group has a moonbat wing.
Case in point here --- name calling, no evidence presented. No wonder you're not getting anywhere with the majority of Americans.
We have so-called conservatives who fight FOR willful ignorance and embrace and accelerate the dumbing down of America. If "moonbat wing" doesn't fit scientists who should know better, then who can the tag be applied to?
And of course, my underlying point that .0001% or so isn't a meaningful statistic stands.
"If anyone does not believe in Darwinism, i'll take them on a tour in the Museum of Natural History and explain it.
No, thanks. Been there and was convinced that Darwinism is not real science. Darwin, himself, in the end, didn't believe his own theory and turned to God.
Not true. And people who say things that are not true are called....?? Anyone???
Here you go.
Take a look at this site.
http://www.setterfield.org/relativityandc.html
What is observable and quantifiable can be interpreted in more than one way.
The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.
It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.
Don't be deceived.
"Not true. And people who say things that are not true are called....?? Anyone???
It's true. It's all over the net, in history books, thought at schools and by our parents.
And people who say that things that are true are not true are called....??
Sorry I had to use your line. LOL!
That Darwin recanted? It is 100% pure BS. There are NO published History Books that have this lie in them. It is a myth and it is irresponsible to repeat it.
And people who say that things that are true are not true are called....?? Sorry I had to use your line. LOL!
Really, REALLY bad idea. This lie has been squashed on these threads so many times that no one even bothers to bring it up any more.
Until now. Give me a minute, I'll get the proper references.
But it is the best way to build an airplane. Or understand the physical Universe's rules.
Here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
I advise you not to pass along misinformation on FR. It never flies.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. If you repeat it, I will know you are being willfully untruthful.
The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.
Before you get too far into this 'discussion', if you don't already know, you might want to consider that GourmetDan is a geocentrist. That's right, he thinks the earth is the center of the universe.
Not of the mudskipper(s) in particular, but I know these fish are Gobies, and I have a pretty strong recollection that Gobies don't appear rather late (for a major group of rayfin fish), I wanna say as late as the Eocene, and in any case long after the first amphibians.
Well that explains a lot. It also means he is probably sober ;)
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.