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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: Chuck Dent; RobRoy
ID 'tards are an embarrassment to conservatism. They fit every stereotype the left paints of uneducated mouth-breathers.

While, ironically enough, Rev. Jesse Jackson is a creationist and gets a free pass from the media. I believe Rev. Al Sharpton is a creationist too, (he is a Pentecostal preacher), but I couldn't find any references on-line. There are a lot of creationists in the Dhimmie party: rather conservative, church going blacks.

241 posted on 09/27/2006 3:24:41 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
But the light from those stars we capture and study is direct evidence. Observable, repeatable, quantifiable and thus theory's can be extrapolated and put forth to the world community to apply scientific process and put those theory's to the test.

The evidence alone separates it from faith.
And in my opinion the scientific process is the best tool humanity has in "knowing" and explaining about our world and everything around us and it. yes there are still mysteries. Faith and science both seek similar goals at times, to solve those mysteries.
But you must have faith to believe in any of earths thousands of current religions.

Theology and philosophy is a different study then science.
And rightly so. If someone finds faith through science good for them. If someone finds no evidence of the supernatural in all our scientific endeavors good for them too. It is a personal choice in the end. Both sides would serve them well to be more respective of the other, and most certinaly do I believe. I think it is a small number from both sides the stir the pot.
242 posted on 09/27/2006 3:25:12 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
" they are so cute when you put them into a little song, like a preschooler"

Thank ye kindly kind sir.

243 posted on 09/27/2006 3:26:47 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Whatever they are, you have a host of closely related animals ranging from zebras to quarter horses, and they can, to a degree, interbreed ~ but rarely do they have fertile offspring.

I would imagine early herdsmen attempted to interbreed every variety of goat to every variety of cow, or deer, or whathaveyou "just to see what happens".

Today, with modern science at our command, we will succeed in creating a kosher pig.

244 posted on 09/27/2006 3:27:55 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Sure it does ~ that's why they are a vanishing group. Due to their unwillingness to treat their women right and give them many sons, they will wither away and hide in corners.


245 posted on 09/27/2006 3:29:03 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Thank ye kindly kind sir.

Well, if you take pride in spewing personal insults...to each his own.

246 posted on 09/27/2006 3:29:42 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Naw, sometimes mudskippers were something else ~


247 posted on 09/27/2006 3:30:00 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Hell hath no fury like a Darwinist denied


248 posted on 09/27/2006 3:30:07 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
It is a scientific field.

It's propaganda.

Evolution is a scientific field. Your misrepresentations will not change that.

249 posted on 09/27/2006 3:30:41 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Yes, your brain has sortation and filing capabilities so it does tend to categorize critters even if they're not different.
250 posted on 09/27/2006 3:31:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

OK, some creationists ARE tards! I was wrong. ;)


251 posted on 09/27/2006 3:31:17 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: js1138; My2Cents
100 years from now 100 years from now, science will have progressed to such a point that gene therapy will provide cures to many forms of mysticism. (Imagine 1b muzzy savages becoming agnostics - LOL.) The chemical mechanisms that create such capabilities will most likely be redirected to entertainment & other forms of mental stimulation.
252 posted on 09/27/2006 3:31:53 PM PDT by Chuck Dent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Yes, the YECs are "strawmen".


253 posted on 09/27/2006 3:32:34 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

An excellent goal, imo. BTW, Marxists have a tenacious hold on irrationality almost equal to that of a Darwinist


254 posted on 09/27/2006 3:33:59 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Love that Pamela Anderson example ~


255 posted on 09/27/2006 3:34:32 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Why do you think the article you linked to does not describe a transitional?


256 posted on 09/27/2006 3:35:14 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"Darwinism" teaches nothing of the sort. Evolution is an explanation of, to be brief, how we got here. It describes a theorized mechanism, one which is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

Let's see what Jesus Christ of "Christianity" said:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

This should impact the discussion.

Just in case someone wants to attribute this comment to "allegory" here is the supporting Scripture:

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth,

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

New Testament references to Adam.

Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Acts 17:26 From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand which should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

Other pertinent scriptures:

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

Isa 40:21-22
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


257 posted on 09/27/2006 3:35:55 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

There are stories of this happening in the wild though. Then there's Ted, the rejected chimpanzee who had 47 chromosomes ~ somebody was doing some "testing" of the hypothesis with that little fellow.


258 posted on 09/27/2006 3:36:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Love that Pamela Anderson example ~

Thank you - I thought it was witty too.

259 posted on 09/27/2006 3:37:28 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm


260 posted on 09/27/2006 3:38:11 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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