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
OK, some creationists ARE tards! I was wrong. ;)
Yes, the YECs are "strawmen".
An excellent goal, imo. BTW, Marxists have a tenacious hold on irrationality almost equal to that of a Darwinist
Love that Pamela Anderson example ~
Why do you think the article you linked to does not describe a transitional?
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.
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.
Thank you - I thought it was witty too.
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.
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%
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.
Floweing plants do everything different than the other critters on Earth.
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.
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.
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.
The article is rubbish Mr. Evo-Bozo Alert!!!
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.
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.
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. ;)
With all due respect:
I would view this as a distraction on a Christian thread. I consider it on topic in a Crevo thread.
Also,
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!
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.
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).
Bring on the BIG GUNS! Where is Coyoteman when you need him?
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.
Darwin himself said that if transitionals were not found
his theory would be in question.
TRD,
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,
ampu
Buck,
You never really ever answered my original question. But you put forth a claim. I simply asked you what Christianity - in your view - was based on if not the scriptures? If you do not wish to share any of the thought that leads you to that statement, you have that right.
best to you,
ampu
That is a valid point. That is why I try to ALWAYS keep it respectful and avoid name calling. It is about the facts at hand.
Generally speaking, I used to limit my attendance on crevo threads to the first 200 posts. But I have noticed a strong trend in favor of the creationists in the last few months. The evo "spam" is less and less effective as the "baffle them with bs" ploy. It makes it more interesting and all parties are welcome.
I think that you're naive (possibly a factor of youth?).
In any event, we both believe in Jesus, so let's stop there.
At the current rate of progress, in a generation or so, gene therapies may become available that promise to raise IQ by perhaps 1 std deviation. However, if a side effect is an increase in scientific comprehension and a reduction in mystical belief, how many people will volunteer?
How wide will the wealth gap grow as more intelligent, educated professional classes continue to generate higher incomes and intra-breed? Could this behaviour eventually lead to a new form of human species? At some point in the future, would IDers follow Neanderthals into extinction?
Seems like Darwinism is about as doomed as the War on Drugs...I keep reading where it's doomed but every morning it's still there and nothings changed.
Most of whom? Kids who are raised to believe a lie and then leave the faith as a result?
How wide will the wealth gap grow as more intelligent, educated professional classes continue to generate higher incomes and intra-breed? Could this behaviour eventually lead to a new form of human species? At some point in the future, would IDers follow Neanderthals into extinction?
Another factor to consider: increase in wealth and intelligence often results in declining birth rates. Many western countries are below replacement levels, and are only kept at a stable or rising rate by immigration. Countries with little to no immigration (Russia) are declining in population.
What would that do to the mix?
Excellent link! Bookmarked for future reference! Thanks!
I hope you're not right.
Excellently put. (I envy you. I miss good ole San Antone where I spent 8 years on active duty....)
Reagan was a creationist.
Most of those posting on FR are creationist/IDers
Most of those posting on the Daily Kos, however, are Darwinist.
Thanks for the post!
This is a HIGHLY dubious point. If anything the ratio seems to be about even, in my own experience.
How about this:
Most people posting on FR believe in God. Most people posting on DU don't.
Believing in God and accepting the theory of evolution as proven fact are NOT mutually exclusive beliefs - otherwise half of FR must be godless, which I personally know is not the case....
Further clarification: Many (most) of those Freepers who accept evolution as fact believe in "ID" in the sense that God was, and must be the creator, if you believe he exists. What we do not accept is the attempt of some to "put God in a box" and define Him and His creation by a simple-minded (mis)understanding of Biblical geneology....
I'm not trying to vex you, but I will answer by asking what you mean by "based on"? I will answer that, of course, Christianity is "based on" scripture, but I do not hold to the literal truth of each word and event. You do, and hence you would define "based on" as something much more strict and literal.
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.