Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: finnman69
"If anyone does not believe in Darwinism, i'll take them on a tour in the Museum of Natural History and explain it."

Great let me know where the "life was created by nothing" is located because I would like to see that exhibit. Or if that is being cleaned and not available please direct me to the "Evolutionary Intermediary Species Location" because I have yet to find one of those either.

These damn facts just seem to be getting in the way of Darwinist theory - damn it all. Please help this creationist understand how it all took place. Thanks
102 posted on 09/27/2006 11:20:47 AM PDT by sasafras (("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

I've gotta say this.

You have a reading comprehension problem.


103 posted on 09/27/2006 11:23:03 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

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?


104 posted on 09/27/2006 11:23:10 AM PDT by smartymarty (If you know why you believe what you believe leadership is inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
The Old Testament is a Hebrew book. The New Testament is a Christian book. How do you answer those Christians who say you really can't believe both?

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.

105 posted on 09/27/2006 11:23:15 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Oh you of many questions, what is there to disagree with this article? Please give references. Really though, I was sure that you would ignore this article and pretend you didn't see it. Lie exposed, ignore it. Motto of evos.
106 posted on 09/27/2006 11:24:23 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Sorry if I misread your intention. Jonathan wells is a Moonie. In addition to being incredibly uninformed.


107 posted on 09/27/2006 11:24:46 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I got it. I just ran with your pass, for those who wouldn't...Like post #82. ;-)
.
108 posted on 09/27/2006 11:27:16 AM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

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


109 posted on 09/27/2006 11:29:14 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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


110 posted on 09/27/2006 11:30:45 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; RobRoy

You're descending to name calling.

'Bye.


111 posted on 09/27/2006 11:31:36 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

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.


112 posted on 09/27/2006 11:34:16 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Just trying to marginalize the "young earth" crowd.


113 posted on 09/27/2006 11:34:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Now I'm doubly embarrased. Not only that, but I've posted twice now on this thread.


114 posted on 09/27/2006 11:35:19 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Thanks for the ping!


115 posted on 09/27/2006 11:37:04 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Everybody who's not a catholic or a holyroller and claims Christian affiliation is either an evangelical or a mormon (whether they are right or wrong).

Don't Bogart that joint my friend...

116 posted on 09/27/2006 11:41:01 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

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


117 posted on 09/27/2006 11:43:39 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

"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.


118 posted on 09/27/2006 11:44:07 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

orbiting moonies placemarker
119 posted on 09/27/2006 11:45:31 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Theo
"Kind" was not used to mean "species" in the most ancient of the texts. Anything before Linnaeus involving "kind" or "species" means little more than "geneal outline" and "it's an animal" or "it's a plant", or "it's another green thing". Those folks didn't know about the microfauna and single celled critters.

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.

120 posted on 09/27/2006 11:47:39 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Pretty funny ...

So the Pro life crowd is actually helping to preserve Darwinists ... atheists, and liberal Democrats !


121 posted on 09/27/2006 11:49:41 AM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Hi Names Ash Housewares. Just be careful with that photo. Some here may say it was forged to give that impression, or others will say that it's just your interpretation of the photo that it is a protoplanetary disk but since no one is there, no one knows for sure. Or you get the real luddites that will say we can't make a solar system in the lab so you have no proof and you are ripping off the taxpayers for your fantasy.

Now I have to scrape my boots of for a third time :(


122 posted on 09/27/2006 11:49:51 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

There's actually not much left.


123 posted on 09/27/2006 11:52:43 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Those who did believe it (evolution), hook, line and sinker are what we call "lemmings".

Those "lemmings", as you call them, earn significantly more than IDers. Show me a professional with an advanced degree (eg law, medicine, finance, etc) and I'll show you someone who understands scientific principles, including evolutionary biology.

ID 'tards are an embarrassment to conservatism. They fit every stereotype the left paints of uneducated mouth-breathers.

124 posted on 09/27/2006 11:52:43 AM PDT by Chuck Dent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

>>You're descending to name calling.

'Bye.<<

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Fact is, I will only say a thing so many ways (and times) until I must assume the person simply does not want to hear what I am saying or does not have the reading comprehension to understand it. Seing the phrase "cop out" repeatedly used is a sign of such debating tactics. At that point it is clearly a waste of both our time to continue to pursue the discussion.

Bye.


125 posted on 09/27/2006 11:54:41 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Not sure if this topic is of interest to you, but with your natural, *AHEM*, cantankerousness, I am certain you could make a contribution to this developing donnybrook!!

Nyet. I'm already far too popular.
126 posted on 09/27/2006 11:55:35 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

I noticed we separately came to the same conclusion regarding buckw.


127 posted on 09/27/2006 11:55:58 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: sasafras
Great let me know where the "life was created by nothing" is located because I would like to see that exhibit. Or if that is being cleaned and not available please direct me to the "Evolutionary Intermediary Species Location" because I have yet to find one of those either.

Sure thing. It's all here. you really should go, spend an entire day, and really understand the history of our planet.

http://amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/bio/

online tour for you here
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/hall_tour/spectrum/flash/

http://amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/other/evolution.html
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/hall_hilites/hall1.html

plus my favorite exhibits
minerals and gems, wanna see a 2 billion year old 563-carat Saphire diamond?
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/other/minerals.html

how about some 400 million year old fossils, or a 70 million YO T-rex
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/
timelines

And my favorite head spinning WHOA exhibit, the cosmic pathway, illustrating comic relative sizes, distances, and timelines to scale. FYI, if the 13 billion years histor of the Universe is laid out to scale on their ramped 360 foot exhibit, human existence is the width of a human hair.
http://amnh.org/rose/cosmic-moreinfo.html http://amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/timelines/

128 posted on 09/27/2006 11:56:16 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Chuck Dent
Hmmmm. Maybe in a capitalist system, but many medical personnel throughout the world work for socialist systems where they receive modest levels of pay.

The smart ones know how to complete applications for immigration into the United States where they can then earn more.

Such people probably know "evolution" but are not otherwise strongly motivated by it. Like, that's hardly the most important thing in their lives.

129 posted on 09/27/2006 11:57:04 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

One can believe in Darwin's God and be a faithful Christian. Read "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller for enlightenment.

Darwinism has been hijacked by the atheist/agnostic crowd. Instead, the evidence supporting the theory doesn't in any way remove God from the equation but instead allows us to better understand his character. The process of evolution created the human being which then was identified by God as the species to which he breathed a soul and hoped would worship him faithfully.

Genesis reveals the consequence of our disobedience and also, God's character. St.Augustine and others have surmised reasonably that this Old Testament book should not be considered a literal historical accounting of events. If you read it as a poetic view of creation, it can be easily reconciled with the evolution of man.


130 posted on 09/27/2006 11:57:49 AM PDT by HeraThera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Chuck Dent

"Those "lemmings", as you call them, earn significantly more than IDers."

So does Barbra Streisand.

"Show me a professional with an advanced degree (eg law, medicine, finance, etc) and I'll show you someone who understands scientific principles, including evolutionary biology."

I am missing some point here. Are you implying that anyone outside that group does NOT understand? And it is a logical fallacy to say "understands scientific principles" and then follow it up with "including evolutionary biology".

"ID 'tards are an embarrassment to conservatism. They fit every stereotype the left paints of uneducated mouth-breathers."

What is a "tard". Are you, by any chance, using ad-hominem or otherwise "name calling" with no evidence offered to support such a position.


131 posted on 09/27/2006 12:00:21 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If it is "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then it was conceived and constructed for that purpose from the outset.

I was not aware of that. Do you have references supporting your claim regarding the motives of the original author(s) of the theory of evolution?
132 posted on 09/27/2006 12:00:37 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: sasafras
Great let me know where the "life was created by nothing" is located because I would like to see that exhibit.

The theory of evolution neither states nor implies that "life was created by nothing", thus your request makes no sense.

Or if that is being cleaned and not available please direct me to the "Evolutionary Intermediary Species Location" because I have yet to find one of those either.

Then you apparently have not sought them out.
133 posted on 09/27/2006 12:03:38 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There's actually not much left.

Bummer

134 posted on 09/27/2006 12:06:22 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sasafras

another great exhibit

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/programs/origins/

Has the universe always existed? How did the Earth become a place that could harbor life? Are we alone in the universe, or does life exist on other planets? These questions and their startling new answers are presented in the four-part NOVA miniseries Origins, hosted by astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson, Director of the Hayden Planetarium here at the American Museum of Natural History.

Origins takes the viewer on a cosmic journey to the beginning of time and into the distant reaches of the universe, searching for life's first stirrings and its traces on other worlds.

Viewers can enhance and extend their understanding of the information presented in Origins in their home or classroom with this Special Collection of resources. It includes articles, video animations, interactives, and student materials related to each episode, as well as additional resources.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/programs/origins/life.php#

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

What are the origins of life? How did things go from non-living to living? From something that could not reproduce to something that could? One person who has exhaustively investigated this subject is paleontologist Andrew Knoll, a professor of biology at Harvard and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life. In this wide-ranging interview, Knoll explains, among other compelling ideas, why higher organisms like us are icing on the cake of life, how deeply living things and our planet are intertwined, and why it's so devilishly difficult to figure out how life got started.


135 posted on 09/27/2006 12:09:31 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy; aMorePerfectUnion

And I to you as well. As I've said before, evolution is compatible with Christianity, but not with those who take the Bible to be literally true. Obviously, you do. That's great, but it doesn't invalidate my premise.


136 posted on 09/27/2006 12:09:37 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
And yet in all that space and time we are the only known life in the universe.

It is premature to conclude that we are the only life in the universe, as our ability to observe planets outside of our solar system is far too limited to make determinations regarding the presence of life on them.
137 posted on 09/27/2006 12:10:48 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
The "literalist" interpretation of the Bible is incompatibile with Christianity anyway.

Everyone knows that.

138 posted on 09/27/2006 12:16:19 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: HeraThera

"One can believe in Darwin's God and be a faithful Christian. Read "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller for enlightenment. "

I don't agree but am making some assumptions by what you mean by Darwin's God. I believe genetics are real and organisms can be manipulated genetically by outside forces.

I do not believe the radical liberal scientists that control 90% of our universities. They find a couple of bones and extrapolate that into a full fledged model of the entire village. I do not believe life on this planet evolved from proteins created by lightning in raindrops or pond scum.

To believe life as we know it evolved from basic amino acids would take much more faith than to believe in a higher power that has touched my life.


139 posted on 09/27/2006 12:16:24 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

Dimensio: The theory of evolution neither states nor implies that "life was created by nothing", thus your request makes no sense.

The Darwinist Theory of Evolution BEGINS AFTER life has been created and AFTER this created life develops the extremely complex ability to pass on traits genetically. Darwinism sets out the first few million or so years.

Like the Church Lady says "How Conveeenient."

When it comes to the origin of life or DNA for that matter - Darwinists can only say "hell if I know"

Yet you will find freeper evo's diving into cosmological debates with their usual arrogance and bullying. It is really strange.

Evo's toggle between using evolution as cosmology and claiming "Homie don't play that" when challenged

140 posted on 09/27/2006 12:17:12 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Hi Al, I vote for sarcastic.

I read up on your profile page - again - somewhat impressed. But I do beg to differ with you on Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy views. You may wish to stop reading at this point as I'm an evangelical charismatic young-earth christian who believes every word of the Holy Bible is inspired of the Holy Spirit.

If this were not so then the prophecies written about Jesus Christ, Israel and Jerusalem (written hundreds of years before these events) would not have been fulfilled - to the letter no less!

Are you aware that the Bible speaks out against religion in every circumstance except one (the one true religion is the one that cares for widows and orphans). I do feel that Catholicism is a religion. Originating in 325AD it claims Peter and Paul as the 1st Popes - which is quite impossible seeing as how they were both dead well before 325AD. Furthermore the title of Pope is the vicar of Jesus Christ. Vicar is a synonym for substitute yet the Bible clearly states that there is no substitute for Jesus.

The best explanation I've heard is that religion is mankinds attempt to reach God while faith is God's gift to mankind. The true church is not a building but is and always has been comprised of anyone who faithfully believes in God's Word - these are referred to as saints in the Bible.

If you study any of the 'organized' christian religions closely enough you'll find there is always some point where they claim the Bible does not mean what it says (eerily similar to liberal judges, politicians and activists who constantly want to re-interpret the U.S. Constitution). For instance, the Bible does say not to worship a woman yet (in the mid-1800's no less) the virgin Mary was deified by the Catholic church. You can search the scriptures online at: http://www.blueletterbible.org

The best explanation I've read regarding evolutions' problems (part I) and a clear hypothesis for a young-earth creation the hydroplate theory (part II) is Dr. Walt Brown's book (available in hardcover or read it all online) titled In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
141 posted on 09/27/2006 12:17:21 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
This is a quote from the website you linked...

"Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation."

There is no case to be made for intraspecies evolution or better yet no facts to prove it - thus a fish does not evolve into an elephant. If there is PROOF of this please provide the evidence. Otherwise evolution is a theory and like any theory is unsubstantiated by evidence.

I will agree that interspecies evolution of traits and genetic characteristics does exist. But there is no mathematical proof that can account for complexity of life based on the pure assumption of genetic chance as a result from environmental adaptation.
142 posted on 09/27/2006 12:19:08 PM PDT by sasafras (("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Why Darwinism is doomed

Global Warming -- We're Doomed!

Has a familiar hysterical ring to it.

143 posted on 09/27/2006 12:20:53 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Huh ? you didnt answer my question - you pointed me to a link on the diversity of life. What you dont have Proof for intraspecies evolution? Are you telling me that you dont have a single piece of evidence where a species like a fish turned into something else like say a dog? How can it be?


144 posted on 09/27/2006 12:23:15 PM PDT by sasafras (("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Luka_Brazi
No, they aren't. They are three different things entirely. Unitarians believe that Jesus was fully human and not divine. Newton was one. Deists believe that a creator created the world, set it in motion, and then stepped back. The deist's God is not a personal God. They are not agnostics though; agnostics believe that it is not possible to know if there is or isn't a God. That was Darwin's position (he started out a believing Christian.)
Lol!
Your dodging. You said: "He was an agnostic, not a Unitarian, meaning he didn't think the question of God's existence was answerable." You went from not answerable to not possible. In any case, Darwin believed in intelligent design and evolution.
"I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."... Charles Darwin
That is the way all Deists look at everything.

I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof.
Do you have that proof?

It would have been better if I'd said Darwin was a Deist, but then Unitarians would take exception. He and his wife were prominent members of the Unitarian community. He accompanied her to church every Sunday but would go for a walk while she attended services.
.
145 posted on 09/27/2006 12:23:26 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

RE:



[Sun Myung Moon]'s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism -- Jonathan Wells




Here is the Discovery Institute's response to
this piece of information :



http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:CSZTM4swmtUJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D444+Truth+about+Jonathan+wells&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT JONATHAN WELLS

Overview: Since the publication of Icons of Evolution (2000), biologist Jonathan Wells hasbeen subjected to a smear campaign by Darwin-only lobbyists, who have attacked everythingfrom Dr. Wells’s integrity as a scholar to his personal religious beliefs. This fact sheet rebuts some of the most outrageous smears.

1. Is Jonathan Wells a genuine scientist?

Dr. Wells’s scientific credentials are impeccable and speak for themselves.Dr. Wells earned his Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of Californiaat Berkeley, one of America’s top research universities.Dr. Wells engaged in further research as a postdoctoral research biologist at the Universityof California at Berkeley. (Beware of false information about Dr. Wells’s post-doc put outby the “National Center for Science Education.” See Truth Sheet, #03-2, “How the NCSEMisrepresents Jonathan Wells’s Science Credentials.”)

Dr. Wells has published articles in a number of leading scientific publications, includingDevelopment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, TheScientist, The American Biology Teacher, and Natural History.

2. Has the “Scientific Community” Refuted Icons of Evolution?

While Darwin-only activists shrilly denounce Dr. Wells’s book, they hardly speak for theentire scientific community.Findings presented in Icons of Evolution draw on the latest scientific research, and Dr.Wells includes more than 70 pages of documentation containing citations to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.Chapters of Icons of Evolution were peer-reviewed before publication by several scientists(including one Nobel laureate) to ensure their accuracy. These reviewers includedscientists who support Darwin’s theory of evolution and were therefore critical of Dr.Wells’ overall point of view.According to one biologist, Wells “has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims anddeceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins formany decades.” (Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology, San Francisco StateUniversity)

Another biologist writes that “Wells has done a great public service” by writing his book,adding that the book’s “extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism… with extensiveresearch notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist.” (PaulChien, Professor of Biology, University of San Francisco)

Since the publication of Dr. Wells’s book, some textbooks have started to correct theerrors he identified. For example, Holt, Rinehart and Winston recently acknowledged thatit re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s embryos icons in its latesttextbook and decided against their use. If the problems identified by Dr. Wells are non-existent, why are some textbook writers already making changes?


3. Is Icons of Evolution refuted by Dr. Wells’s religion?

Unable to disprove the science in Icons of Evolution, some Darwinists have resorted toattacks on Dr. Wells’s religion instead. For example, more than 40% of the book review ofIcons by by evolutionist Jerry Coyne in Nature was devoted not to the content of the bookbut to “outing” Dr. Wells as a member of the Unification Church.Trying to shift the focus onto Dr. Wells’s religion is bigotry, not science, and it ought tooffend thoughtful Americans who support religious liberty.Purporting to “refute” Dr. Wells’s scientific views by attacking his religion is a cynicalrhetorical ploy that has no place in legitimate scientific discourse. Darwinists who attack Dr. Wells and other scientists on the basis of their religion arehypocritical. While these Darwinists complain about supposed religious motivations ofscientists critical of Darwinism, they never object to the anti-religious motives of leading Darwinists.

For example, Darwinists Francis Crick and James Watson, co-discoverers of the structureof DNA, are outspoken atheists, and Crick has indicated that his scientific research wasmotivated by a desire to undermine belief in religion.

Similarly, Darwinist Richard Dawkins asserts that “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpoxvirus but harder to eradicate.”

When is the last time you heard a Darwin-only activistclaim that the scientific views of Crick, Watson, and Dawkins should be ignored becauseof their anti-religious views?


4. Does Dr. Wells misquote evolutionists?

Darwinists frequently claim they are being misquoted by scientists critical ofDarwinism—even when they aren’t. This is a debating trick employed by Darwin-onlylobbyists who don’t want to answer the scientific arguments being raised against neo-Darwinism. While Darwinists have sometimes tried to make this allegation against Jonathan Wells, the allegations aren’t supported by the evidence.

One example: In oral testimony before the Texas State Board of Education in July, 2003,biologist David Hillis complained that Dr. Wells quoted him “extensively” in Icons ofEvolution and alleged that the quotes were “taken completely out of context.”o In reality, Dr. Wells quoted a mere four sentences from Prof. Hillis on a singlepage in Icons, and none of the material was taken out of context.o

The quotes cited by Dr. Wells came from a chapter by Prof. Hillis in the book, Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, edited by biologistBrian K. Hall.

Ironically, Dr. Hall also peer-reviewed the chapter in Icons ofEvolution that quoted Prof. Hillis’s comments. Is Prof. Hall guilty ofmisunderstanding what Prof. Hillis was saying as well?o For a detailed refutation of Prof. Hillis’s spurious misquotation claim, see“Reponse to Dr. David Hillis” by Jonathan Wells, available at www.discovery.org/crsc.


146 posted on 09/27/2006 12:24:04 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Has a familiar hysterical ring to it.

Similarity does not always imply identity.
147 posted on 09/27/2006 12:26:15 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Ah, yes, and we only have several different Domains and Kingdoms of Life on this one planet, and that's only if we group all the Archaeobacter together into one Domain, and group the retroviruses with the other viruses.

Something to think about ~ these groups are really different in many fundamental ways. But, the possibilities don't stop there ~ at the moment efforts are underway by experts in the field to demonstrate that archaeotes, procaryotes, and eucaryotesall arise out of viruses, and not the other way around.

Bet some of you had no idea there's dispute on the matter eh?!

Given the probability that the tools necessary for life arise directly out of perturbations in space/time, life elsewhere should resemble one or more of the types of life we have here.

In fact, it's even money that folks won't be able to tell the difference (at the molecular level).

148 posted on 09/27/2006 12:28:25 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Kind" was not used to mean "species" in the most ancient of the texts. Anything before Linnaeus involving "kind" or "species" means little more than "geneal outline" and "it's an animal" or "it's a plant", or "it's another green thing"

Which version of the Bible are you reading? It's pretty clear from Genesis 1 that within the general category of "animals" there are many different "kinds."

If you've got a few minutes, let me encourage you to take a look at this page -- http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#kinds -- for an exploration of how those who adhere to the "Biblical creationist model" interpret "kinds."

149 posted on 09/27/2006 12:29:37 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"I do not believe life on this planet evolved from proteins created by lightning in raindrops or pond scum."

The science points to a Big Bang which is compatible with God starting the process of evolution. Evolution is not a scary concept to believers if analyzed objectively without an agenda to disprove God. In fact, as explained in the good professor's book, "Finding Darwin's God", this science supports the concept of free will, disproves God as a charlatan or magician, provides for a divine spark to the beginning of the world, and gives an explanation of the Genesis' accounting of creation over time, if we accept that God's concept of time is quite different from ours. Also, miracles can be defined as God's intervention outside the natural laws created by Him.
150 posted on 09/27/2006 12:29:53 PM PDT by HeraThera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson