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
This is about on a par with Slick writing a book about 'The Lie'. Like the Toon, Ham's book must be persuasive because he is an expert liar....
Thank you for bringing some common sense into this thread.
Oh man are your posts dead-on! As I like to say, 'Young-earth creationists' are putting God in a box.
No and yes. Unless you want to put God in a box and deny Him the power that you are too scared to understand...
>>Using Scripture in a discussion about Science is the same as using Scripture in a discussion about auto repair.<<
Generally speaking, I agree with the premise of your first sentence, but it does not apply here. This is not a discussion of science. It is a discussion of Darwinism.
"Now if you want to have and actual discussion"
I wouldn't discuss dog crap with you.
His intentions are irrelevant to the validity of his positions. Like I said - why don't you take on his positions rather than attack him personally?
How is taking the Bible literally to be considered 'putting God in a box'? For me it's simply - God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
The corollary to your argument is that God has lied to you - yet the Bible clearly states God is incapable of sin and can not tolerate it in his Holy Presence. Don't bother replying - I can guess that your going to tell me Genesis is mostly myth and fable and recorded by mere man therefore full of error and mis-interpreted statements. Hardly!!!
Jesus studied the Bible and affirmed the old testament - Please please please try digging a little deeper into your faith rather than relying on worldly experts and their opinions.
If you read the article you would know where he got his Ph.D's
Apparently you don't find that a fair question.
It is a fair question but the answer can be found in the article - you should read the article before you add comments.
Top ten ignorant post of the day placemarker.
You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.
You really are funny
Yeah, a cute little song is proof Wells is lying.
Which opens the door for you to tell us all "what ID really IS." Have at it.
Yes. They have never taken any course in physical anthropology, which clearly shows fossil and skeletal evidence that evolution is a scientific fact.
And, none of this is incompatible with believing in God. It IS incompatible with fundamentalists, who believe the LITERAL TRUTH of the Old Testament, however.
Top ten ignorant post of the day placemarker.
I agree - but we have more entries today - this one is from an Evo:
Evo:the content of his studies is irrelevant to what motivated him to pursue that study
BTW I do think I spelled worldly correctly both times as if a minor spelling error invalidates a whole post anyways...
So what's this, chopped liver?
(Note its position in the chart which follows; hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
No. The mudskipper does NOT so appear. It has fins, not feet. It has none of the amphibian skull anatomy of Tiktaalik or other genuine transitional candidates. Etc. And of course as a living creature, with no indication of a long fossil history, the mudskipper is not properly positioned in time to be a transitional, even ignoring its anatomical unsuitability.