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

[tacticalogic]

I also personally don't believe that is really evidence to support his claim. But Wells does present what he thinks is evidence.

Then I question Wells' grasp of the concept of what constitutes evidence to the same degree and in the same way that you challenge stands2reason's grasp of the English language, and expect the same rules of what does and does not constitute a "personal attack" to apply equally.

[PFC]

hmmm.

Interesting notion. The main idea he seems to be saying is that since most Americans don't believe in evolution, it must not be true.

So, basically the laws of nature are up for a popular vote like American idol contestants.

[ml1954]

...and ad hominem placemarker.

Last I checked, a statement of fact is not an ad hominem. And your 'egocentric' comment was an ad hominem. Or was your placemarker self referential? Sorry if I've completely misunderstood you post. Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Discounting *ALL* of someone's posts on the grounds that they adhere to geocentrism is, strictly speaking, ad hominem.

Discounting any of their conclusions which can be shown (or reasonably expected) to be shown to derive from the faulty premises of geocentrism is not.

People get tired of the "same old thing" from the "same old people" and resort to intellectual shortcuts.

The "egocentrism" was simply a pun involved by switching the letters around, together with an example of another ad hominem for reference...I have been accused of egocentrism by others before, but what would *they* know, anyway? ;-)

Thanks for replying instead of putting me on a virtual ignore list.

Cheers!

[ml1954]

Discounting *ALL* of someone's posts on the grounds that they adhere to geocentrism is, strictly speaking, ad hominem.

But I didn't say *ALL* posts from the poster should be ignored. I provided what I thought was relevant background info.

I have been accused of egocentrism by others before, but what would *they* know, anyway? ;-)

Sometimes it's actually a veiled compliment. And it's always good to have someone whispering in your ear. IMHO, it's better to be accused of this than of false humility. :) Cheers.

[taxesareforever]

There is a difference between your subjective definition of 'sin' and MULTIPLE FELONIES like assault and battery, perjury, theft....

Not in God's eyes. We all sin every day and to God sin is sin whether it be murder or lying.

[taxesareforever]

Hey Di, get a life.

[Al Simmons]

I apologize for not being clear. There is a difference between 'sin' (which can fit almost any selfish behavior), and criminal acts punishable under man's law.

I was taking umbrage at your insinuation that somehow her 'sin' and my 'sin' were equivalent.

That's NOT what I was talking about. Whatever 'needs' of hers I failed to meet, it did not justify the law-breaking actions she undertook.

All clear now I hope.

[Dimensio]

Telling me to "get a life" is a poor substitute for admitting error.

[taxesareforever]

Yep. Got it.

[taxesareforever]

To you, everything is questionable. So if I was to admit error, that would even be questionable to you. Therefore, I don't want you to question your own questionableness so therefore I won't admit anything to you.

[balrog666]

[Dimensio]

Making excuses for not admitting error does not change the fact that you were in error.

[taxesareforever]

In your questionable mind everyone except you and your ideas are in error. You would think the error of evolutionary thought would totally occupy your thought pattern.

[Dimensio]

In your questionable mind everyone except you and your ideas are in error.

Making false accusations against me does not demonstrate that your claims are true.

[taxesareforever]

Just that I am right. And does that make me feel so good.

[Dimensio]

Given that I have acknowledged error in the past, your claim is demonstratably false.

[Gargantua]

"...which calls into question your qualification on claiming that any part of it is "doomed"..."

I never, in any posting, claimed that Darwin's Theory is "doomed."

Which calls into question your ability to discern fact from delusion. If you must set up non-existent straw-men to make your point, you're actually ceding that you haven't one. Get a brain, then get a manual which explains how to use it properly... n'kay?

PTBS.

;-/

[Gargantua]

I say, have you any barbecue sauce?

;-/

[Dimensio]

I never, in any posting, claimed that Darwin's Theory is "doomed."

You are correct. I had mistakenly misatttributed someone else's declaration that the theory is "doomed" to you. This does not, however, alter the fact that you attributed elements to the theory that are not actually a part of the theory, which does call into question your credibility when speaking on the theory.

Which calls into question your ability to discern fact from delusion.

My statement was a mistake, not a delusion. Your insults do not lend credibility to your claims.

Get a brain, then get a manual which explains how to use it properly... n'kay?

Insulting me not only does not demonstrate that your claims are factual, but they are also a violation of the terms of usage for this forum.