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
Actually I mean the inverse of what you said. I am not addressing Well's comment - I am addressing the Evo retorts. If one person in the Evolution field is anti-religion, one can not logically or validly say "Evolution is not anti-religion". You do understand this is a matter of opinion on both sides?
That is the only point I am making.
If you quantify the Evo retort your might have a valid statement.
Well we know of at least one and that is all that matters.
2. Some Mathemetians are anti-religious. Some Bus drivers are anti-religious. Some doormen are anti-religious. There is no linkage.
Linkage to what?
Just as claiming something is a non sequitur (no second "e") doesn't make it so
You have yet to demonstrate any statement was a non sequitur so your comment is of no value.
Since you have a problem understanding logic
Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?
If there is one "pusher" of Mathematics that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Mathematics is not anti-religion.
That would be a true statement. Your statement demonstrates that you do not fully understand logic. If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.
Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.
Then it is no less valid to say that as long as on person in the Creationist field is anti-science you cannot logically say that "Creationism is not anti-science." I understand it is a matter of opinion on both sides, but I don't consider conclusions drawn from the personal opinions of a single source to be of any particular value. It would be just as valid for me to make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the words and actions of Jim Jones.
That is the only point I am making.
If you quantify the Evo retort your might have a valid statement.
My response to Mr. Well's argument is every bit as quantified as his original assertions.
Absolutely! It is just simple logic.
but I don't consider conclusions drawn from the personal opinions of a single source to be of any particular value.
Good for you - not sure what that has to do with this thread.
It would be just as valid for me to make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the words and actions of Jim Jones.
What are you claiming are "sweeping generalization(s)"?
This is simple logic - you can't argue with simple logic. If one in a group has a trait, it is invalid and illogical to claim nobody in the group has the trait.
Examples of illogical invalid statements:
Christians are not murderers
Catholics are not lawbreakers
Evolution is not anti-religion
starting to see the light?
"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God."
and from that the conclusion that:
"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."
Christians are not murderers
Catholics are not lawbreakers
Evolution is not anti-religion
starting to see the light?
Indeed. What I don't understand is your willingness to accept the inverse in the case of evolution, when it is no less illogical to do so.
A single instance of someone using the TToE as a "weapon against religion" does not justify characterizing it as being "first and foremost" for that purpose.
If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.
Ah. I see what is happening here. We don't have a logic problem, we have a language problem. The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."
That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.
What this ends up doing is making the statement "Evolution is anti-religious" meaningless, since almost everything is anti-religious. Unless that is your point: that almost everything is anti-religious. But if that is your point and we are discussing TToE, it becomes moot, like saying "Evolutionists breathe air."
Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.
I love it when someone who asks "Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?" ends their post with an ad hominem attack.
How is that a gross generalization? Looks pretty specific to me.
and from that the conclusion that: "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory,
You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"
Indeed. What I don't understand is your willingness to accept the inverse in the case of evolution, when it is no less illogical to do so.
I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?
A single instance of someone using the TToE as a "weapon against religion" does not justify characterizing it as being "first and foremost" for that purpose.
True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?
Well said.
If you believe that something that is untrue, ad hominem, disengenuous and specious is "well said."
I assure you, on these threads the trophy for attacks (what else do CR/IDers have?) goes to CR/IDers -- hands down.
The entire field of biology? That sounds pretty sweeping to me.
You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"
When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist. Is this not the quote to which you were referring? If it has no connection, how is it to be taken as evidence?
I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?
You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made. I took this to mean that you agreed with it. Is that not the case? If not why the argument over it?
True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?
This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.
Now all you have to do is tie these cute little drawings to
real creatures and prove there was a sequential evolution.
They are real creatures, currently living ones.
My point is not that one is descended from another, but that functional eyes include many levels of complexity. It is unnecessary to start with the most complex version.
Humans, by the way, have nothing close to the best or most complex eyes. there are predator eyes that are far sharper and which have better color vision.
I only point out spelling errors when I am being called ignorant of something.
The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution."
I have said nothing about that statement - my position applies to this statement: "Evolution is not anti-religion" which was used as proof Wells is lying. Read the thread.
The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."
Nope - wrong again - I said nothing about the statement "evolution is anti-religion"
That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.
Non Sequitur - since I am not supporting in any way the statement "evolution is anti-religion"
The same issue applies. What do you mean by the word "Evolution?" Changing the meaning from "Evolution: the Theory" to "Evolution: The Community" is just as disengenuous as the "1 person standard."
You are still playing word games. Talk about spin.
So let me get this straight - whenever somebody references the field of Biology - you think it is a sweeping gross generalization? You do understand that quote is from a hard-core Darwinist?
When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist.
Yes, a quote from a Darwinist is considered evidence. I made no qualitative judgment.
You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made.
What "statement" are you talking about? One I neither made not support?
This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.
Yes but you implied I said or defended this statement - which I do not - you are wrong.
Why not present quotes (supporting evidence) with your accusations?
Ask the person that made the statement! I just responded to it. I assume they mean the field of study related to Dawinist Evolution (based on the context of the thread)
Have you actually read any of the article or the thread?
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.