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

[Elsie]

What if the Muslims are correct?

Then there are a LOT of other religions also correct that rely on the "Doing more GOOD than EVIL" solution to entering Paradise. Christianity is the ONLY one that says you CAN'T be 'good' enough - never - ever - therefore you need a SAVIOR.

[Elsie]

;^)


Sounds like a good start!

[Elsie]

You do realize that Henry drove more people away from Christ than anyone else I'm aware of, with the possible exception of Jack Chick?

You've got data, of course.

[Elsie]

NO ONE can drive anyone from Christ but themselves with their free will.

HA!

Little do YOU know!!

Why, I, myself, have been accused of doing that very thing here in FR!

[Elsie]

HE's used talking donkeys before! ;^)

[Elsie]

Just follow the posted to links back.

I must be a dolt. Following the links I can not dig this part out.

Imagine my surprise to read his actual words and find that he says information theory proves Darwinian evolution.

[SirLinksalot]

Berlinski claims to be a Jewish agnostic. Assuming he's telling the truth, he'd be the first non-theist anti-evolution activist I ever heard of.

And why is it a big deal either way ? Why SHOULD being an atheist or an agnostic DE-FACTO give your scientific view more credence than Christians like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Werner Von Braun or Theists like Albert Einstein ?

why should the religious beliefs of agnostic turned Christian like Francis Collins, who helped map the human DNA have ANY BEARING whatsoever on the SPECIFIC issue of whether Random mutation plus natural selection can produce HUMAN LIFE ? The answer is it DOES NOT.

Wow, I didn't think it was possible, but you seem to have found a couple of agnostic anti-evolution activists; one of whom wrote a book defending astrology, the other of whom appears to be a newage nutcase.

LOADED WORDS --- newage nutcase. et. al. Simply because you disagree with their views.

let's take Michael Behe's statement on astrology IN CONTEXT, instead of mis-understanding him. You complain a lot about quote mining out of context. Well, physician, heal thyself. You immediately pounce on Behe and then say to yourselves : "Now we have ID people who want to teach something they themselves admit is on the same scientific level as astrology."

If you heard what he said at the time, weren’t you surprised? I know I was. Funny thing is, if you go to the actual transcript (use your Find feature to look for "astrology" in looking at the Dover transcripts, and then back up a few sentences to get the context), you’ll see that the typical description is very misleading indeed. Behe was explaining why he thought ID was a scientific theory (and hence, why it could be taught in a public school while not violating the separation of church and state). To put it very loosely, Behe said that a scientific theory explains numerous observations about the natural world by reference to some unifying principle, and that this indeed is what ID does in biology. Naturally Behe did not add the caveat, "To qualify as ‘scientific,’ a conjecture must first command the assent of at least 95% of the relevant scientists."

Of course the lawyer pounced and asked Behe if astrology would count as a scientific theory under this definition, to which Behe replied "yes." Now, Behe isn’t an idiot, at least when it comes to publicity ( anyone who attended his public debates knows that he comports himself logically and scientifically). He knew full well why that question was being asked, and he knew his admission would be splashed all over the newspapers. So if he were truly intellectually dishonest, why wouldn’t he dodge the question? Why wouldn’t he act, say, Kerry did during their debates?

But when men like Richard Dawkins says things like :

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

It's OK and he isn't a nutcase ( not even if he insults the majority of Americans with that statement ).

[js1138]

I can't help you. I gave you the link. The statement is even in bold. If you want to know more you will have to track down Yockey's paper in Computers & Chemistry.

[js1138]

Behe said that a scientific theory explains numerous observations about the natural world by reference to some unifying principle, and that this indeed is what ID does in biology.

Garbage. You can make any number of "Explanatory" statements, but they are not scientific unless they have implications that can be tested empirically. Any hypothesis or conjecture must suggest research. Field research, laboratory research, something concrete.

ID has been sitting on its ass since 1802 without saying anything that has empirical implications. Even the Discovery Institute admits that they have been pushing changes to curriculum before having an actual research program.

[SirLinksalot]

Did you know he wrote The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction

Yes I know he did. But ask yourself WHY HE DID IT ?

SEE HERE : http://www.harcourtbooks.com/authorinterviews/bookinterview_Berlinski.asp

EXCERPT OF THE INTERVIEW:

Q: What was your motivation and inspiration for writing a book about astrology and its influence on modern science?

A: I was intrigued by the idea of a failed science, the more so since the science in question has a very long, very curious history. Astrology has been present in Western culture from its very beginning in the Sumerian era. With the advent of mathematical physics in the 17th century, astrology comes to an end both as an intellectual and as a social force. And yet the science that replaced astrology—Newton's science of mechanics—and astrology itself, although differing very considerably in intellectual power, nonetheless share a strong family resemblance—the same strong bones, wide-set eyes, and slightly goofy expression. What I found most interesting about astrology as a failed science is that in some sense it lives on despite its official and widely-noted death rattle. Astrological forms of thought are present in biology, a most astrological endeavor, and even in contemporary mathematical physics itself. Astrology has always been a magical discipline inasmuch as it has always been committed to some form of action at a distance, the very mark of magical thinking. Magical thinking has not disappeared from modern science: It has simply been disguised by a brilliantly effective mathematical screen. Where the screen is thinnest, as in molecular biology, the magic is still very notable.

Beyond this, the problems that the astrologers faced had the quality of great depth—action at a distance, free will, causes that incline but do not compel; and the men and women struggling to meet these problems evoke a sense of shared sympathy—in me, at least.

CONTEXT MEANS A LOT DOESN'T IT ?

[SirLinksalot]

Garbage. You can make any number of "Explanatory" statements, but they are not scientific unless they have implications that can be tested empirically. Any hypothesis or conjecture must suggest research. Field research, laboratory research, something concrete.

NONSENSE. Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific. He is simply saying that it has UNIFYING EXPLANATORY ATTRIBUTES, even if it is not scientific.

He is most definitely NOT endorsing astrology as VALID.

As for Field research, laboratory research, something concrete --- HEY WE'RE ALL FOR THAT. We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

[tacticalogic]

We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

Somehow I doubt we'd all like to see that.

[js1138]

We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

If you are so ignorant as to confuse biogenesis with evolution, then you are beyond help.

If -- rather than "produce life" -- you mean "account for changes in populations over time," I think we can see that. As another freeper might say, take it up with Yockey.

The mechanisms of variation are there and can be observed, the mechanisms of selection are there and have been harnessed by breeders for centuries, the evidence in ERVs is there to demonstrate continuity, and the unity and continuity of cellular machinery is there.

[js1138]

The political fracas is not over biogenesis -- testbooks don't claim we know how that happened. the fuss in Dover was over common descent -- something that Behe accepts.

I am mystified as to why anyone who doesn't accept common descent would want ID taught.

[SirLinksalot]

The mechanisms of variation are there and can be observed, the mechanisms of selection are there and have been harnessed by breeders for centuries, the evidence in ERVs is there to demonstrate continuity, and the unity and continuity of cellular machinery is there.

How is that evidence for RM+NS. The cellular machinery has been in placed ( question -- how does RM+NS produce this machinery in the first place ? ).

Then you use the words : "harnessed by breeders". Breeders ? wow, that's random indeed.

[SirLinksalot]

the fuss in Dover was over common descent -- something that Behe accepts.

The Dover board originally approved a statement to be made in the beginning of the class that says that there are competing theories to Darwinian Evolution and if students want to read more, there are materials they can avail of.

IT's THAT SIMPLE. BUT EVEN THIS ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.

[tacticalogic]

I am mystified as to why anyone who doesn't accept common descent would want ID taught.

I can't think of a design more intelligent than one that would be self-maintaining and self-upgrading.

[js1138]

Variation and selection can be observed, even studied directly in the laboratory.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634489/posts

And selection can be manipulated in agriculture and animal breeding -- activities that mimic the differential reproductive success of individuals in the absence of human intervention.

Nearly all the things we eat are the result of selective breeding. Most of our food crops cannot survive without cultivation.

But until very recently, there was no manipulation of genomes -- just selection by humans rather than "natural" contingencies.

[js1138]

IT's THAT SIMPLE. BUT EVEN THIS ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.

You mean like Pandas

LOL.

Why not have Uri Geller teach alternative physics? Teach the controversy.

[SirLinksalot]

Michael Denton is no longer an anti-evolution activist.

I never considered him an activist. He was a SKEPTIC, that's all. Not an activist to the extent he is going on a warpath to stop evolution education. That is not his style.

Be that as it may, you refer me to a web page that mentions this :

-----------------------------

Source: Nature's Destiny. From the impossibility of evolution to the inevitability of evolution: Anti-Evolutionst Michael Denton turns into an 'Evolutionist'. A review by Gert Korthof version 3.1b 23 May 2000

Quote from the book : >BR>
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii). ---------------------------------------

1) Note the DATE of the book --- 2000.

2) Denton was never a fan of creationists. That does not make him a non-skeptic of evolution.

3) He came out with a book in 2002 ( two years after the said work you refered to in that website ).

Here it is :

http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Destiny-Biology-Purpose-Universe/dp/0743237625/sr=8-1/qid=1159627851/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3238153-5815259?ie=UTF8&s=books

TITLE : Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

From Publishers Weekly

New England biologist Denton continues the assault on Darwinian science, especially the theories of evolution and natural selection, that he began in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Here, Denton takes a page out of the work of 19th-century natural theologians like William Paley and 19th-century anti-Darwinian scientists like Robert Chambers to contend that, far from being random and without direction, the laws of nature operate by design. Moreover, says Denton, the design of the laws of the universe inevitably lead to one conclusion: "The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning." Denton marshals a dizzying array of scientific evidence to bolster his conclusions. First, he examines the evidence from physics and chemistry for the inevitability that the development of a universe like ours would have the evolution of life as its goal. He discusses gravity, the nuclear energy levels of certain atoms, water, light, carbon, uranium and more as elements whose existence is perfectly orchestrated to usher human life onto the universe's stage. Denton then discusses evolutionary biology, arguing that the biocentric nature of the universe undermines the Darwinian principles of contingent natural selection. Denton's arguments are weakened by their circular nature (he assumes design in nature and proceeds to make pieces fit his argument whether they do so easily or not), but his prose is engaging and his insights are accessible to readers who lack a deep scientific background. In the growing debate over Darwin's theories, Denton's voice remains one of the most notable and compelling.

Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.