Skip to comments.Why Darwinism Is Doomed
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.
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
So you are allowed to post abstractions (A, A', A'', A'''. ...) but I am not? That's an honest form of debate.
I'm going to assume you will not read these links, which is really too bad, because they contain something that creationists claim doesn't happen in science -- an instance in which a well established "fact" is overturned by lots of research and careful reasoning.
Of course this doesn't change the larger fact that species is a fuzzy concept with not much basis in biology. Or that evolution progresses by tiny changes, so that transitions cannot be seen in human time scales.
You cannot see the relevance of the color gradient, apparently because you have been lied to about how evolution works. You have gotten too much of you education about evolution from Hollywood movies.
This is not true - Wells presents evidence - you just don't agree with the evidence.
What does that have to do with Gould?
#726 does not support your position - I guess that is why you refused to present a quote. You are just rambling now.
It is an "attack" on what looks like your inability to understand the English language. If you want to prove this "attack" is invalid - demonstrate you understand the English language so people will not have to show you dictionary definitions of words you misused.
I was not the one that made the point: " Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth." I believe that was js1138.
Sometimes this leads to misattribution...
What evidence does he present?
I'll spell some of them out, I think you'll get the drift.
the hypothetical designer is not a good engineer.
1. Is the designer primarily an engineer at all?
2. If so, was the designer acting IN that capacity when making life-forms as we know them?
3. Do the life forms as we know them accurately reflect the original designs? ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.")
a. What if the designer made life forms and walked away (semi-Deist view) and subsequent evolution has screwed stuff up?
b. What if other supernatural agents have corrupted things since the original design?
c. What if the original design was for conditions far different than we have now?
d. If the designer made life forms as an engineer, and you think present conditions reflect the environment for which they were designed, AND there was no skulduggery since then, do you know the intended purposes for the life forms as they were designed, both ultimate and proximate? Think of some of the engineering school challenges to build vehicles to get ultra-high gas mileage...I bet they'd *suck* on crash-test ratings. But they weren't trying for safety anyway. Or for another example, "Build a working suspension bridge entirely out of toothpicks" or "Design and build a working electric car for under $1000".
e. Are these the final designs or is the earth a workshop or proving ground where various ideas are beta tested, or prototypes made for "proof of concept" ?
Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.
And no, I don't consider this nitpicking. Some of the objections are a hat tip to Christian theology, since the complaint is that ID is Christian creationism in drag; if you think this, than it is only fair to at least raise an eyebrow towards other purported factors which are brought in by Christian theology. And the other objections are something most any competent project manager would consider when beginning an engineering project.
You got it. So much for some people's "faith".
You mean "Boiling Point"?
The quote from the prominent Darwinist.
The point is not lack of evidence - the point you are making is you don't see it as evidence (unlike Wells)
I also personally don't believe that is really evidence to support his claim. But Wells does present what he thinks is evidence.
Boiling, frog, humor, or a small attempt.
I must say that I found his character in 'Jugatsu' alternatively hilarious and disturbing.
I think that, from a pure perspective of 'painting with the camera' - which I think is one of Kitano's greatest abilities, I like 'Hana-Bi' the best. When you see his paintings (which are prominently featured in the film), you realize where that talent of perspective and color comes from. You have to see his films on an HDTV or you miss all the subtlety and understated action in all of his distant shots (as you may have noticed, none of his shots are 'wasted', and even the sometimes (for American eyes) long static shots of individual characters are absolutely pregnant with tension so that they become amost hypnotic waiting for the something to happen. For example, the scene in 'Violent Cop' where the hitman is standing at attention in front of the Yakuza boss sitting behind his desk, as the boss berates him; I found it almost too difficult to watch as the boss sits there quietly steaming watching him - shot from the boss's sightline, with the hitman's torso visible only - the tension is so palpable you could cut it with a knife.
By the time he makes 'Brother' he's become a master, and that is my favorite gangster film period. He plays Aniki with "subzero cool" as one reviewer wrote.
"Zatoichi" is, of course, his absolute masterpiece. The film is layered like a dobos-torte - every time I watch it I see something I didn't notice previously - the detail with which he sets up the foreshadowing of various later events - which you will inevitably miss the first time through - is the work of a true master. Since no one will see it the first time around, most directors wouldn't bother even putting such scenes in....
Well said. He is a real genius. And Hana-bi is my favorite too, although "Getting Any" and Takeshis really make me laugh.
I have not watched "Takeshi's" yet. (I became a Takeshi fan earlier this year when I picked up the Zatoichi/Sonatine double-DVD pack at Bloackbuster, chiefly because I have always found Japanese Samurai films fascinating.) I recognized him immediately as the host of Spike TV's "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" ('Takeshi's Castle' from the 1980s)
Thanks to ebay, I now have 16 of his films - there is one or more out there that he appeared in, but did not direct.
Since he said he made 'Takeshi's' for his fans - with references to all of his earlier films, I'm holding off til I've seen all the other ones. No rush. I watch each one at least twice before moving on. His films are so unlike Hollywood schlock I can never tire of watching them....
BEWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! (Just to let you know its appreciated. You've made my day in more ways than one (my first chance to discuss Kitano's work with another fan - check out the Kitano section of my FR homepage....)