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
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.