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 consider a quote from one evolutionist, who was in no way involved in the development of the theory, to be definitive proof of the validity of conclusions drawn about the theory and the motives of it's authors? The quote from the evolutionist is no better than the evidence upon which it is based, and that evidence is not there.
I understand I am arguing with someone's qualitative opinion. What is it in the article you disagree with, and on what basis do you disagree with it? You've implied that I have no basis to disagree with anything he's said unless I possess at least equal credentials in biology and theology.
Nobody claimed a theory has an option they were speaking of those the are big in the field. Your point is nothing but silliness and you demonstrating you don't understand the topic of the thread.
Straw man. That is evidence that a person can USE TToE to push an anti-religion agenda.
Far from a straw-man (to quote Frank Zappa) this is the crux of the biscuit. That is the point the author is making.
So if there is one false Christian minister then all of Christianity is false?
You are not even close. Your example is a bogus analogy since the statement in question does not conclude that Evolution is false.
You are trying to twist and distort. A valid example would be if there is one false Christian minister than it is invalid to claim there are no false Christian ministers.
So you think you are mind-reader and know Gould's secret motives - whatever
If there is one "pusher" of evolution that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Evolution is not anti-religion. Unless you want to argue the nonsensical position that "theories have no options"
This is simple logic.
Because nobody asked me a question about a hypothetical anesthesiologist.
What are you rambling about?
1. Define "many."
2. Some Mathemetians are anti-religious. Some Bus drivers are anti-religious. Some doormen are anti-religious. There is no linkage.
Who wants to SUBSITUTE?
Ad hominem "rebuttals" also make conservatives look bad.
But....
Ad hominem statements (creationist goons) made by EVOLUtionists are ok?!
Sheesh!!!
Repeating a non sequiteur doesn't make it so. Since you have a problem understanding logic, let me do the work for you:Substitute the word "Mathematics" for "Evolution." Now lets run the statement again:
If there is one "pusher" of Mathematics that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Mathematics is not anti-religion.
Well, I can guarantee you that of the hundreds of thousands of Mathemeticians there will be at least one who is anti-religion.
Thus, by your "logic" Mathematics is anti-religion. In fact, virtually every single branch of science (and all other trades and professions) are also anti-religious since almost all will have at least one anti-religious adherent.
YOU got the NUMBER!!
Who said "creatonist goons?"
I must have missed it (it doesn't sound like something I would say).
And the fact that someone who understands TToE said it doesn't change the validity of my statement.
"They did it too" is a very childish response.
LOL -- I am sure that represents a lovely symmetry for many here.
finnman69
Well that was just mean.
True, but only if the original tale teller wants to appear much more pure than whom(?)ever is being told upon.
LOL!
;^)
(But... sometimes very accurate!)
I prejudged him based on the fact that anti-evolutionists bring up his name every time they need a mathematician to prove that evolution can't happen.
Imagine my surprise to read his actual words and find that he says information theory proves Darwinian evolution.
At least Wells is reliable. Unless the Moonies accept evolution.
That is not how the English language works - you said "what a dumba$$" The use of "a" makes it an attack on one person (although this is not necessarily the definition of a personal attack). What you were doing is attacking the person that made the statement rather than attacking the statement - this is a textbook example of a personal / ad hominem - you are not going to be able to spin your way out of this.
But you aren't that stupid, you know that is a personal attack, just like your bozo alert was.
Alert - to warn
All I said is "warning, Evo-Bozo's may infiltrate this thread". I directed it at no one person (unlike you)
Spin all you want, you are clearly the one hurling personal ad hominem attacks
Using you warped logic - who is the person you think my "personal attack" is directed toward? That would be Evo-Bozo's so unless you think you are an Evo-Bozo than it is not directed at you. (you did not think that out, did you) See how deep of a hole you dug?
So do you also think the terms "Terrorist Alert" or "Moonbat Alert" are also personal attacks - if so, who is the person it is directed at?
what else can one expect from a creo
I don't know - I am not a creo
...then don't talk to yourself?
Evo's sure to like to use ad hominem attacks.
When the going gets tough, some Evo's turn to personal attacks as they dive for the tall grass
I would like to say "sorry to see you leave" but this thread does not need you ad hominem personal attacks.
Cool - I was just curious.
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.