Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: stands2reason; Last Visible Dog
Fertility levels for the hybrid animals (ligers, tigons, etc.) are far too low for replacement levels in the wild even if they did occur there. Not to mention they show a number of behavioral confusions reflecting the differences in how lions and tigers behave out there. An interesting genetic difference can lead to gigantism in ligers and runtiness in tigons. That is, at least one important growth hormone's gene is on the X chromosome in one species and the Y in the other.

They're speciated from each other, just not too long ago. If all we had were fossil skeletons, we'd have no clue that it had happened at all, BTW.

We have examples of even more recent and less complete speciation, such as rings species in birds and salamanders. Horses and donkeys are an example of a more complete speciation. (Mules and hinnys are almost always sterile.)

In fact, we have almost any degree of speciation and not-quite speciation one might expect if evolution were producing the diversity of life. What we don't see are any easy, natural groupings of created kinds unrelated to each other.

261 posted on 09/27/2006 3:40:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I think the more important issue is that Christians should not quarrel about religious issues, and when they DISCUSS, in love, the inevitable divergent issues, they should make sure to do so where non-Christians overhear them, as the non-Christians are distracted from the main point by what is really surplussage.

(Not my original thought, it's from C.S. Lewis's preface to "Mere Christianity.")

99.99% of the Bible is very clear, and agreed to by all denominations and flavors of Christians.

We should spend more time on those parts, as they are hard enough to put into practice.

When we have those down, let's worry about the remaining .01%

262 posted on 09/27/2006 3:42:22 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; muawiyah
Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce? The evo logic seems flimsy.

It's not a "belief", it's part of the definition of "species".

Take an island with plenty of grass and water. Introduce 100 stallions and 100 jennies. 100 years later it will be free of equids. Same thing with 100 mares and 100 (male) donkeys. If you have co-ed horses and asses, 100 years later you still will have two popoulations that breed true. Therefor horses and donkeys are different species.

263 posted on 09/27/2006 3:45:43 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
This does not apply to flowering plants. It's theoretically possible to find dissimilar species of flowering plants that can "breed" so that you could take a gene from something like corn and through clever breeding insert it in the genome for an oak tree.

Floweing plants do everything different than the other critters on Earth.

264 posted on 09/27/2006 3:50:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Makes sense to me.

But I allowed myself to get into the Christianity sidetrack here becuase there is a valid point to be made. Specifically, that this issue IS in the 99.99% and not in the .01% as some would claim.

Let's be frank here, I have listened to two "Christian" ministers give strong arguments that the Bible is silent on Homosexuality. I'll bet that is in Lewis' 99.9% as well.

I believe this issue as well as the "evolution compatibility with Christianity issue" is, as Lewis said, "those parts" (the 99.99%)

One must make similar logical leaps in both arguments to support the counter viewpoint.

265 posted on 09/27/2006 3:52:21 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
Good grief, we know that no REAL scientist has any doubts about evolution!!

The actual fgure is something like 99.8% of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc. In other words, 998 out of a thousnad professionals accept evo, 2 don't.

266 posted on 09/27/2006 3:52:27 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

OK--one more time. Although evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity, it is not compatible with a literal reading of the Bible. You believe the literal word of the Bible. That's great, but you can't accommodate an understanding of evolution.

267 posted on 09/27/2006 3:52:44 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
" Evo Strategy: if you can't intellectually challenge someone's positions - you can always spew personal insults "

The article is rubbish Mr. Evo-Bozo Alert!!!

268 posted on 09/27/2006 3:58:59 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

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

He's not just a backsliding Methodist, he's in a mild-control cult for heaven's sake! I'm appalled at the number of freepers ready to shill for the Moonies just because of this issue.

269 posted on 09/27/2006 3:59:58 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I view this as a distraction; you do not. Opinions differ; that's why there are horse races.

I would highly recommend Lewis's book.

Me, being raised Jewish, always accepted the mose common Jewish answer on this debate.

270 posted on 09/27/2006 4:01:31 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

You said: The actual fgure is something like 99.8% of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc. In other words, 998 out of a thousnad professionals accept evo, 2 don't.

The article said:

"The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts)."

IOW, the article was wrong when it said "which no one doubts" Apparently at least two guys do. ;)

271 posted on 09/27/2006 4:05:19 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Luka_Brazi
Darwin was an agnostic who said he didn't know if God existed. He also didn't believe in God. There is no inconsistency.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Darwin: "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws"...Who was the designer of those laws?

If you believe that the existence of a God is not knowable, you are not a Deist. Deists believe that a God does exist.
Again...That reading comprehension problem. It is the knowledge that is beyond human comprehension. Knowledge is proof. That is what both Darwin and Huxley were referring to. I even gave you Huxley's definition of agnostic...Huxley created the word "agnostic". My idea of God may differ from yours but I can't prove my faith is right and you can't prove your faith is right.

Now you're changing the goalposts. We were talking about God's existence, not his nature. Deists do not doubt God's existence.

No, we were not talking about God's existence. We were talking about Darwin's agnosticism. Darwin could not define God. Huxley could not define God. You can not define God.

Darwin's book was a direct assault on ID. He despised ID.
Again...Darwin: "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws"...How does that differ from intelligent design?

He was dismayed when Asa Gray accepted his theories of natural selection by claiming that God directed it.

Rubbish. Gray helped Darwin develop the theory of evolution. Gray wrote "Darwiniana" praising Darwin. The only "dismay" was Darwin's fear that religious zealots would have him and Gray imprisoned or hung!

Darwin didn't think anybody was directing it.
Nor does any other Deist.
"I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. 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
Designed Laws...Providence
272 posted on 09/27/2006 4:06:53 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

With all due respect:

I would view this as a distraction on a Christian thread. I consider it on topic in a Crevo thread.


I currently have three copies of Mere Christianity at home and have given out at least three times that many. I also taught a Sunday school class on this book and it's biblical concepts.

I consider Lewis to be the greatest Christian apologist and writer of the 20th century. He introduced me to paradigms I had never even considered before.

The first time I read it was the second most defining moment of my life. The Bible became new again!

273 posted on 09/27/2006 4:18:09 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Good for you! It's a great book.

And, yes, I understand this is "on topic" for a "Crevo" thread.

My point is that the entire "Crevo" dispute is a distraction, and the venom and back-and-forth has done more to drive thinking people from inquiring about Christianity than anything in recent history, aside from Communism.

274 posted on 09/27/2006 4:26:35 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Actually, Christ is the basis for Christianity. I can't recall whether it was Fr. John Romanides or Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos who provided the lapidary phrase, "Christianity is a way of life based on a Person, not an ideology based on a text."

Wierd notions like 'Biblical inerrancy' only arose when protestants, generations removed from any organic connection with that way of life, tried to reconstruct the Faith using only the Church's principle books as their starting point. Nothing like the "Biblical Christian" attitude toward Scripture can be found in any of the Ante-Nicean Fathers, nor in the writings of the Cappadocians Fathers, nor St. Athanasius (all contemporaries with the fixing of the Christian canon).

275 posted on 09/27/2006 4:29:00 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Bring on the BIG GUNS! Where is Coyoteman when you need him?

276 posted on 09/27/2006 4:29:04 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

There you are: I thought I had set you straight!

277 posted on 09/27/2006 4:32:58 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
There you are: I thought I had set you straight!

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. That sometimes helps on these threads.

278 posted on 09/27/2006 4:37:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Darwin himself said that if transitionals were not found
his theory would be in question.

279 posted on 09/27/2006 4:38:52 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

I agree with what you wrote to a degree.

Christianity - as revealed in Scripture - is a relationship with Christ.

Where I sense I would disagree with you comes in how we know Christ. I believe it is through the revealed word alone that the relationship is formed and grows. Scripture is the basis for that relationship. And it is the "truth test" for all claims. Otherwise, we have only opinion instead of revealed truth.

If you are putting forth the argument that you can know the Person of Christ through any other means, then you have no way of knowing that the "Christ" you have met is not Krishna, or another imposter. Any teaching should be compared to the Scriptures - or else why was it so important to "any of the Ante-Nicean Fathers, ... Cappadocians Fathers, or St. Athanasius (all contemporaries with the fixing of the Christian canon)" to definitively declare which books were inspired of God? Hmmm? Apparently, the importance of this canon was apparent to them as it should have been. St. Paul declares that all scripture is inspired by God. Apparently he also believed scripture important.

In the absence of Scripture, do you rely on the men you quoted?

To close on where we agree with each other...

If someone knows the scripture alone, but doesn't have a personal relationship with the Savior, he is bankrupt.

best to you,

280 posted on 09/27/2006 4:42:55 PM 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 275 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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
Topics · Post Article

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