Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[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

[GourmetDan]

Here's one for you from Halton Arp. He's the guy who discovered that redshift didn't equal distance and was refused telescope time for his discovery.

Such is how 'science' treats dissenters.

http://www.haltonarp.com/

Here's his Wiki entry for an easier read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Then see Tifft for his work on 'quantized' redshifts, which mean that redshifts don't represent distance, but some other quality of the object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

There are a lot more opinions of the evidence that 'standard science' would admit.

These guys are particularly interesting.

http://www.holoscience.com/

Have fun...

[freedumb2003]

Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DOUBT BY MANY SCIENTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

A itty bitty tiny weensie percentage is not "many." Oh, and almost none of those "scientists" are in the Life Sciences.

[ml1954]

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue.

Just wondering when that other interpretation is going to make an appearance. Or is this what you meant..

[SirLinksalot]

OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

NO, let's here yours, this will indeed be a dandy.

[freedumb2003]

Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans seem to remain unconvinced with Darwinism.

Because they don't like the conclusion and/or they (incorrectly) think it conflicts with The Bible.

[SirLinksalot]

Or is this what you meant..

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

[freedumb2003]

You want me to go back over TToE for you?

[SirLinksalot]

You want me to go back over TToE for you?

[freedumb2003]

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

Please tell us what it gets wrong.

[SirLinksalot]

You want me to go back over TToE for you?

You want me to go back to the ID rebuttal for you ?

[GourmetDan]

Yes, one who is still waiting for that bit of evidence that heliocentrism is uniquely true and one who stands with Sir Fred Hoyle who wrote:

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416, (Quoted in Spring, 02 BA, p.64.)

[ml1954]

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

The floor is yours.

[freedumb2003]

Whatever gets it into evidence.

(I'm watching L&O right now)

;)

[SirLinksalot]

Please tell us what it gets wrong.

Iders look at the same evidence but come up with the conclusion that Random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce the complexity of life as we see it. THAT's WHATs wrong. IDers don't go to the Bible at all. Many IDers are agnostic.

[Dimensio]

I am unable to locate any articles rebutting current conclusions drawn from observation of ERV insertion patterns across primate species at either www.discovery.org or www.arn.org. Could you direct me to an article that I may have overlooked?

[freedumb2003]

You want me to go back to the ID rebuttal for you ?

Oh yes, please do. And don't forget to list the peer-reviewd journals that identify the ways in which ID is testable and falsifiable (to name two of the criteria necessary for a theory).

[js1138]

OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

I posted a discussion by a well respected mathematician and biologist -- someone who is often cited by critics of evolution. He is generally regarded as fair-minded by evolution critics. You have almost certainly read his book on information theory. what do you think? Post 611

[js1138]

Oops, I posted that to the wrong person. Here it is again

I posted a discussion by a well respected mathematician and biologist -- someone who is often cited by critics of evolution. He is generally regarded as fair-minded by evolution critics. You have almost certainly read his book on information theory. what do you think? Post 611

[freedumb2003]

Iders look at the same evidence but come up with the conclusion that Random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce the complexity of life as we see it. THAT's WHATs wrong. IDers don't go to the Bible at all. Many IDers are agnostic.

Ah. Agnostic but believing in some sort of Q Continuum interloper. By defintion this is neither falsifiable nor testable.

You have but to produce the Designer for an interview and ID wins the day. But if said Dsigner keeps skulking in the shadows, ID is useless as a scientific idea and fails as a Scientific Theory.

[Jorge]

Its kind of like an incantation, or imitative magic. If you say it often enough perhaps it will come to pass.

Exactly. Those who profess hollow and Godless theories like evolution believe they can make a lie into fact by repeating it with enough personal conviction.

Unfortunately they insist on following this fable to it's ultimate doom.