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
Nope. And by the way, I never said the pyramids were built by aliens. I just said prove that they weren't. I belive that is a logical request.
Asking someone to prove a negative is the opposite of logical.
Naah...that won't work with him...Occam was a Muslim, so he can't have ANY relevance to a Christian (read: Evangelical/Born-Again) world-view...just like anything that Dr. Laura says on the radio doesn't count, because, see, "she's not a Christian"...oh and any of your parents who "didn't accept Christ BURN IN HELL!!"...
*SLAP*
Oh! Sorry guys!! I was channeling my EX for a moment!!
Occam's razor is a principle elucidated by the scientist of the same name, way back about 1000 years ago. Summed up it states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.
It certainly is.
You do good work. Kind of red in tooth and claw, but it cleans up well.
I too play at dice.
Again, you misrepresent me...It is interesting to watch you continue to misrepresent my position...All you can do is continue to misrepresent my (and Hoyle's) position...
Here's your position, in your own words.
GourmetDan: I believe that God created the universe and life ~ 6,000 yrs ago and that the universe is geocentric.
"Universal" in this context meaning "a teeny, tiny percentage."
I love that. The ultimate egotism when there is no argument or facts.
Oh wow, look at the pretty designs. Now can we go shopping?
Knowing 'how' to think is much more important than getting the right answer.
GD thinks he has stumbled onto some profound insight into life, the universe and everything, because coordinate systems can be remapped.
Hmmm - lets think and try to come up with a group that emphasizes "thinking" over "analysis and facts." Hmmm.
GD thinks he has stumbled onto some profound insight into life, the universe and everything, because coordinate systems can be remapped. Posting HTML
I think I thought the same thing when I was a junior in High School also.
(CP Dan)
GD thinks he has stumbled onto some profound insight into life, the universe and everything, because coordinate systems can be remapped.
I assert the tip of my right thumb is the center of the universe.
And I demand that I may or may not be Broomfondle!
Thanks for that. I've read it several times now and it makes sense to me.
Again, you misrepresent me.
As Sir Fred Hoyle said,
"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.)
What is it about 'no physical significance' that you don't understand?
Yeah, so what is it about 'no physical significance' that you don't understand?
"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.)
Refresh me on what your argument and facts were?
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.