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
Do you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative?
You can continue to argue apples vs. oranges...with somebody else
We must agree to disagree.
Do you? You claim I have made a "quantitative" assesment of the evidence. I know enough about the difference between qualitative and quantitative to know that you can't make a quantitative assesment of something that doesn't have a quantitative unit of measure.
You've erroneously interpreted "no evidence" to be quantitative when it is not, and cannot be.
So now you are claiming the amount of evidence does not have a quantitative unit of measure - do you realize how silly of a statement you just made.
Like I said, you can dig as deep of a hole as you desire - your arguments lack understanding of the terms - not to mention your statements lack reasoning - you just want to "win"
We will have to agree to disagree.
It's not silly at all. Are you saying it does have a quantitive unit of measure? If so, what is it?
Psst, psst. Point me in the direction of the "perfect" people. That's for you to prove.
Here are the definitions of the words you seem to be having trouble with:
Quantitative: How much evidence - the quantity of evidence
Qualitative: How good the evidence may be - your opinion.
Why don't you look up the words rather than ask me to explain it to you - don't be so intellectually lazy.
You are making a quantitative statement (speaking of the amount of evidence) and then you try to back it up by making qualitative statements (you don't think the quality of the evidence is good) - very illogical.
And what exactly is the unit of measure of evidence that I am expressing a quantity of? You do understand "unit of measure" don't you? You claim that in is inaccurate to say that there is "no evidence" there. If that is the case, perhaps you can tell me exactly how much evidence there is.
I've already agreed to change my assesment from "no evidence" to "non-existent evidence" and then to "fraudulent evidence" to try and find something that suits you. What more do you want?
Whatever the author provides as evidence - is evidence. That is not up to you - you are not in control of the quantitative aspect of somebody else's position. You can provide your opinion - that is the qualitative aspect. Based on your qualitative judgment you can claim you feel the evidence is not evidence at all - this is still a qualitative judgment - you can not change the quantitative aspect unless you rewrite the article.
So you can't tell me how much evidence there is? That's probably because there isn't any. That's what we call a "clue".
I've been nice, and limited my criticism of the article to what is objectively defensible. If you insist on having a subjective "personal opinion" I can give you one. I doubt that you'll like it.
No where did I ever claim this.
You and I are in basic agreement over many, many things.
I merely want the 'daily' claim pointed to clearly.
(I think that if I were to check into a local hospital's census; I could find a coma case. I really doubt that this person is going to 'sin' daily.)
Will 'trying to acheive perfection' count? ;^)
NIV Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
NIV Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
You are not making sense again - you are going to give my a "personal opinion"? Yeah. Right. Whatever...
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
This includes a person who is in a coma. If one is born in sin one cannot toss sin away. It can only be taken away by God, thur Christ. Why do we die? It's because that is the punishment for our sinfulness.
Only thing that counts is faith in Jesus Christ. He has done it all for us. 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Is. 64.6 But we are all as an unclean thing, an all our righteousnesses are as filty rags:....
Wells is a charlatan, a fraud, and a liar. He's a stark raving, bible thumping fundamentalist moonie-bat, who's gone out and gotten himself a degree in biology for the sole purpose of using it to try and pass off his theologcical preaching as "science". He's trying to pass himself off as a "scientist", and his opinions as "scientific" when he doesn't have, and never did have the slightest intention of allowing anything as objective as the scientific method anywhere near his methodology or conclusions.
That would be a qualitative judgment - remember, you are trying to defend your quantitative statement.
All the evidence to support it is in the article, whether you choose to see it as evidence or not.
Clearly you still don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative.
That has been the issue all along.
(Bears repeating - LOUDLY!!!)
If it's "in the eye of the beholder", then there is no objective reference to say whether any difference actually exists.
You still don't get it - "in the eye of the beholder" refers to the presentation of evidence by the author of the position - you may retort with a qualitative argument but you are attempting to retort with a quantitative argument and it is not working.
You still don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative and so you are relegated to the "PeeWee Herman" style retorts: "Is not...is not...is not...is not..."
An entirely qualitative statement, ie your "personal opinion".
Say hello to your own petard.
Yes, my qualitative analysis is you don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative. And your point is....?
You might want to look up the word "petard" - looks like you don't understand the meaning of that word either.
This is pointless. You clearly don't have the remotest clue as to what you are talking about (btw: that is a qualitative statement)
The statement will be given all the consideration due all such statements from idiots.
Now you turn to personal attacks - so predictable.
No personal attack. Simply a qualitative assesment.
Face it - you turned to name-calling and personal attacks because you ran out of intellectual ammunition.
It's not a personal attack if it's true. As far as "intellectual ammuntion" goes, any intellectual aspect of this exchange went down the toilet when evidence became "in the eye of the beholder".
AMEN to that!
You do like to flaunt your ignorance.
I hammer idiots as a public service.
Hoisted up by your LEOTARD ain't too much fun, either!
And you spelled moron wrong.
Like I said - some Bozo's really do like to flaunt their ignorance. Keep it up - it is fun to watch.
Actually you just make a fool out of yourself.
All the con artist shills tell me that.
Do you talk to yourself often?
Occasionally I'll grumble, and go get a bigger hammer.
Seen it before. You don't have to defend what you say if you don't really say anything. It's a coward's tactic.