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
But Adami is certainly right about the book having typo problems. As to whether the book has been adequately peer reviewed: I imagine that a highly reputable publisher like Cambridge University Press would have seen to this.
I gather the two gentlemen have strong differences of opinion. So what else is new?
How WRONG you are!
(It's called FAITH ;^)
However....
Insulting ME probably means I did something to deserve it.
I have another life....
I could live with his beliefs if he were a gentleman.
Kill the messenger?
No...
I wanna touch YOUR na is hinted at in the textmessaging.
Does your definition of faith include ignoring physical evidence? If it does, you should at least state that from the outset! Admit that no amount of evidence will convince you rather than disingenuously claim that no evidence has been provided. What would Jesus do? I am certain he would do the honest and honorable thing.
The gradient is an analogy.
But it isn't a bad one. Take a look at the width of the yellow band and compare it to the width of blue or red.
The fact hat some transitions take place faster than others does not mean they take place in one step.
The "rapid" transitions of punk eek would still involve thousands, or hundreds of thousands of generations.
As for anteaters and aardvarks -- gee, maybe you've found the silver bullet. Want to bet on it as more and more genomes are decoded?
It is posible to devise a test of the TofE given current technology. For example the TofE predicts that genetic similarities between species are more likely to be related to the timing of their last common ancestor than to their place in the economy of nature. Therefore if we pick 2 groups of mammals and predict DNA similar/different then test this with gene sequencing the TofE would have to make a prediction (since any genetic finding is compatible with ID the same would not be asked of it). No tricks here, all species meet the accepted definition of mammal as the females secrete milk and they all have hair on some part of their bodies at some point in their lives. Their putative fossil ancestors meet the criteria for mammals in having 3 ossicles and a single dentary bone for a mandible. In group #1 we’ll put the spiny anteater, the banded anteater, the scaly anteater, the giant anteater and the aardvark. In the second group we’ll put the arctic fox, the giant panda, the walrus, the mink and the tiger. The TofE would have to predict that the species in group #2 would be more closely related genetically. If this would turn out not to be the case perhaps evolution would’t be falsified but it would have recieved a serious injury to one of its key hypotheses.Source
But in it, you didn't stop posting to other threads.
That was the topic of the thread.
So? Just because you don't agree does not make it magically become non-evidence - it is just evidence you don't accept. Spin all you want, evidence was presented - you just don't agree with the evidence. BTW: could you state these "rules of evidence" that you are speaking of?
Please explain the relativism in my statement. Once again you are exposing your ignorance in your attempt to "get me". Relativism is a qualitative judgment - I made a quantitative statement (the only qualitative statement I made was "I don't agree with the evidence presented") You don't understand what you are talking about.
The "rules of evidence" dictate that what is presented as evidence be logically associated with the conclusions it is purported to support. There is no logical association between the Gould's quote and the conclusions Wells has drawn from it. If what he presents as "evidence" does not support his conclusions then it cannot properly be held as evidence.
If we accept your assertion that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder" and I don't see anything he's presented as evidence then you don't have any basis to establish that it is.
Psst, psst. The Bible. Romans 3:23
Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
Which are different for every individual.
(Color blindness)
Yessir; I sure like that animal; I think I'll make some more almost like it.
--GOD
My multi-tasker must have malfunctioned.
Romans 3: 23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
HMMmmm... where is the DAILY part??
So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)
Nor does it revolve around Mr. Wells. If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence, whether you and Mr. Wells choose to believe that it exists or not.
When you declared that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", you made it purely subjective. There is no longer any discernible "right" answer to whether there is evidence or not. I don't agree with this, but it appears to be the only definition of "evidence" you will accept, so there you have it.
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.