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 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: stands2reason
Personal attack alert. Is that all you have?

It was not a personal attack because it was not directed at any person. But thanks for playing.

201 posted on 09/27/2006 2:11:02 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Luka_Brazi
He didn't believe in a designer. He was agnostic. He didn't believe in a God

The word "agnostic" was created by Thomas Henry Huxley.
According to Huxley, "agnostic" means that knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you’re considering that the origin may be God, science, or something else entirely.
If he didn't believe in God he would be an Atheist, not an agnostic.

Then you are not a Deist. Deists are not Agnostic about the existence of God, by definition Deists believe in a God
LOL!
You are going to tell me that I'm not a Deist?
Shall I tell you that you are not a Christian?
Agnostic refers to knowledge, not faith.
Deists recognize that God's nature can't be comprehended by human knowledge.

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Thanks for proving my point...He was talking about knowledge, not faith.

"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, the inventor of Intelligent Design.
.
202 posted on 09/27/2006 2:17:26 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Explain it to me now, where did say the 70 million year old T-rex come from?


203 posted on 09/27/2006 2:20:03 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
I'm not barking up any tree. Put my statement back in context.

What are you talking about? If you think the context is wrong - explain the context. I did not take anything out of context.

204 posted on 09/27/2006 2:20:14 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
So he belongs to a cult. That shouldn't be a reflection on his mental faculties at all! (/sarc)

I beleive that statement is an example of bigtory. Based on his religion you pasted judgement on his scientific work. What next? The color of his skin?

205 posted on 09/27/2006 2:25:14 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Actually, as a 'recovering born-again Christian', I know more about it than you'd think. I've personally ,et some of the biggest names in born-again Christianity, and I am sad to say that for every Billy Graham there are 5 or 6 hucksters, making it up as they go along.

I'll never forget Creflo Dollar asking people to come up and leave $$$$ at the feet of the preacher whose church he was guest-speaking at, or Kenneth Copeland telling the story of how God told him to buy a million-dollar airplane and then how his congregation made it happen.

Cherchez l'argent

206 posted on 09/27/2006 2:28:43 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
This stupid guy with only a PhD in Biology from Berkeley. Good grief, we know that no REAL scientist has any doubts about evolution!!

/sarc

207 posted on 09/27/2006 2:30:27 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Exactly. Which is why the origin of life is not a part of ToE.


208 posted on 09/27/2006 2:32:04 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

We are talking about species -- groups -- not individuals.

Species that do not reproduce but CAN are lions and tigers. Without our assistance, they'd never reproduce. That's why they are different species.


209 posted on 09/27/2006 2:34:17 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
It was not a personal attack because it was not directed at any person.

It was not a plural, it was specific. Who was the remark in reference to?

210 posted on 09/27/2006 2:35:42 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
File pic of Jonathan Wells (left):


211 posted on 09/27/2006 2:36:02 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Thank you. The mudskipper appears to be no more a "missing link" than this supposed missing link: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/05/fossil-fish-20060405.html


212 posted on 09/27/2006 2:41:24 PM PDT by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

Comment #213 Removed by Moderator

To: Last Visible Dog
I beleive that statement is an example of bigtory.

It's called discrimination based on mental faculties. Would you feel comfortable having surgery if your anesthesiologist started talking about the aliens who are stealing his thoughts?

What next? The color of his skin?

Don't be ridiculous.

214 posted on 09/27/2006 2:42:47 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Moonie Wells doing a wild bit of naysaying on a few unrelated news items and titling it "Why Darwinism is Doomed?" Papa Sun Myung must be smiling.
215 posted on 09/27/2006 2:42:51 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me

216 posted on 09/27/2006 2:43:07 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Species that do not reproduce but CAN are lions and tigers. Without our assistance, they'd never reproduce. That's why they are different species.

So you are saying if two groups of animals CAN reproduce but don't are considered different species - OK - what are groups that CAN'T reproduce called?

Like I said earlier - can you provide any supporting evidence for your claims?

217 posted on 09/27/2006 2:44:42 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
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.

Glad he makes this distinction...one than many Darwinists on FR refuse to make.

218 posted on 09/27/2006 2:45:40 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
one which is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

Define "Christianity."

219 posted on 09/27/2006 2:47:47 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

The "70 million year" figure is highly debatable, and, contrary to popular belief, highly subjective. There are huge disagreements as to the validity of the "accepted" ages....or what those ages actually are.


220 posted on 09/27/2006 2:48:18 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,181-1,195 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