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
I've gotta say this.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
If you are a Christian you can read in the Bible that God 'stretched out' the heavens. So our investigation should center around "Wow! How did God do that?" rather than how to figure out starlight traveling for 'hundreds of millions' of years. How in the world can you observe, measure and replicate that in a lab?
Jesus believed the "Old Testament." Paul, who wrote most of the "New Testament" believed the "Old Testament." I consider myself in good company, then, believing the entire Bible.
Sorry if I misread your intention. Jonathan wells is a Moonie. In addition to being incredibly uninformed.
B,
I know you can read or you wouldn't be able to post here.
So, I am assuming you can easily see what it says.
ampu
m,
So, according to your post, either it means whatever you want it to mean. Or it means nothing. Or no one can know what it means. Which do you go by?
ampu
You're descending to name calling.
'Bye.
So we are to assume that you have a full understanding of the universe based on your stated beleive in Darwinism. And further that anyone questioning the science of people with an obvious agenda are ignorant?
Just wondering not attacking.
Just trying to marginalize the "young earth" crowd.
Now I'm doubly embarrased. Not only that, but I've posted twice now on this thread.
Thanks for the ping!
Don't Bogart that joint my friend...
B,
No name calling. You asked how I know what it says. I read.
I'm assuming you can do likewise. So we both know what it says.
That is a specific response to your question.
My original question to you is...
How do you separate Christianity - that is built on the foundation of the Hebrew scriptures Christ quoted and the New Testament that records His words and acts - from what they actually say?
You replied asking how I know what it says. I read.
If you are saying that even by reading you cannot discern what it means, I'm asking you what you base Christianity on?
ampu
"Big universe. A lot of planets out there. Starlight traveling for hundreds of millions of years and more to reach us. "
And yet in all that space and time we are the only known life in the universe. Funny how two people take the same data and develop different opinions.
"We see other planetary systems forming. I know our system looked the same at one time."
No you assume it looked the same. Unless you have a time traveling gizmo in your pocket there is no way to "prove" your statement.
We agree that freedom to believe differently is whats great (one thing) about this country.
You might want to take a look at some of the research done on how human beings categorize "things" (living or dead). There appears to be one or more structures in the brain already hardwired to assist in the categorization.Here's a quicky about how rhesus monkeys do it ~ http://web.mit.edu/~davidf/www/ABCNEWS_CatsandDogs.htm
There are a hundred thousand or more references to "how the brain categorizes" on the net, so read your heart out.
Oh, yeah, the brain "categorizes" different aspects of the same thing ~ e.g. animal shape in one place, animal color in another.
I suspect most of the intensity of emotion about "kind" arises out of the realization by many people that they do, in fact, think that way ~ even if the critters are unrelated.
As an example, remember when folks wanted to believe the black and white giant panda was closely related to the black and white raccoon?
They're not ~ they're just another kind of big ol'fluffy bear that can smash a steel beerkeg with simple, playful strokes.
So, knowing what I know now about how brain categorization works, I understand what the ancients were saying. BTW, I also have to note here that there are instructions in Genesis about how to set up a Memory Palace in your mind to help you remember vast quantities of information better, so that means the ancients, too, had an objective understanding of how we remember. They'd likely not stumble over an idea like evolution, but'd just pop it into the memory slot appropriate for such processes.
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.