Skip to comments.Why Darwinism Is Doomed
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.
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
That was well put and I can agree with that. I'm not an atheist, but I am not religious. However, I have respect for religion, but not if it throws out the 'facts of science' as you eloquently stated your position.
>>>If anyone does not believe in Darwinism, i'll take them on a tour in the Museum of Natural History and explain it.>>>
"According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact."
It's true cause I said so! Right?
Oh, puh-leeze. This is a bit of semantic obfuscation that would make Bill Clinton blush scarlet.
I don't think every creationist believes the earth is 10,000 years old.
>>"Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God,..."
"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.<<
For crying out loud, quit mincing words, With the exception of your first sentence and your last "compatibility" remark, you are saying the same thing thw quotes says. Read the actual words in what you quoted.
And Darwinism is pretty much dead. Those that never believed it in school, yet were not religious, would be what we call "skeptics". Those who did believe it, hook, line and sinker are what we call "lemmings".
It is good to ask questions. Many of the "anti-evolution" books are written by men who never got straight answers from their biology professors regarding evolution as it relates to science and decided to find out for themselves, resulting in the books they wrote.
*CREVO FLYING BRICKBAT PING!!
Actually, they're not. They're trying to nail down the difficult relationships using the new genetic tools. As in, how many phyla of animals are there?
That's what makes the creationists' story line so difficult to maintain. Facts just aren't relevant to creationists. They'll still be writing this story 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, and 10,000 years from now.
After that, no one will remember what the argument was about.
Well, even Darwinism predicts that Darwinism is doomed. People who believe in creation are against abortion in far higher numbers than people who believe in evolution. Therefore, creationists' children are not aborted, while Darwinist babies get killed. Even a 1% lower birth rate mathmatically dooms a pool of genes over many generations... Therefore, if Darwinism is true it predicts that it's own adherents will be squeezed out of the gene pool eventually. If Darwinism is not true, it will eventually be proven false, also reducing its adherents. Either way it is doomed insofar as being the majority view.
You're right. A lot of them prefer a date much closer to 6,000 years.
The "young earth" crowd only give the Earth 5,100 years based on their error filled analysis of Bible stories.
They don't count, and their use as a "straw man" is ridiculous.
Here we go again... :( The earth is at the center of the universe. Spontaneous generation creates rats. Anyone who disagrees with these things is a liberal atheist. Why science itself is liberal! Let's just abandon all science, live in huts, and ignore any challenge to our orthodoxy.
Good heavens, it's 2006, and we're still debating if evolution is real. Sad but true. And for the record, I am a staunch Christian.
The "young earth" crowd only give it about 5,100 years, not 10,000.
BTW, did you perchance think of the devastating effect on young people's religious faith that finding out that they have been sold a bunch of *BS* masquerading as science?
WELL, DID YOU???
Didn't think so.
The people you're talking about believe that it's about 5,100 years, far short of 10,000.
Thanks for the tour offer, but I'll pass.