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 is not true. Please present PROOF that evolution is not anti-religious. Here is evidence it is anti-religious:
"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." - Stephen Jay Gould
I am not saying everybody that supports evolution is anti-religious - far from it. But there are some who are some so you can not claim "evolution is anti-religious" is a false statement.
How is this different from taking away earth's status as the center of the universe? Facts are facts. If your religion is threatened by the findings of science -- such as the fact that the earth moves, the sun does not literally rise and set, the universe is billions of years old, and people really are made of "dust," then you need to tell me how evolution is more threatening than other findings of science.
What the heck are you talking about?
A statement about Wells not being motivated by religion is directed at me - I ask why - and you say "I am certain assumptions about his motives are unfound"
That makes absolutely no sense
I never claimed certainty about anything and I never claimed Wells had no motives.
Earth to tacticalogic
Earth to tacticalogic
Come in tacticalogic
OK - that did not come out right - intention, other than the intention to deceive - have nothing to do with whether or not a statement is a lie.
No, but you do seem to take issue with anyone who questions his motives, and whether those motives bring his objectivitiy into question.
Is it the assumptions about his motives you find unfair, or questioning whether those motives affect his objectivity?
Its not opinion. The fact is many reject the overwhelming scientific evidence and study that proves the Universe is approx 13.7 billion years old, the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, the first living organisms lived around 3.5 billion years ago, early Homo species who used tools lived 2.5 million years ago, and finally Homo sapiens have existed for about 250,000 years.
None of what I posted is in dispute, perhaps the exact dates are unknown, but Darwinism is not dogma.
One statement contains a reference to a deity and one does not
Facts are facts.
Maybe but most of what people think are facts - are not.
If your religion is threatened by the findings of science
But thanks for taking an interest in my personal religious beliefs
There are plenty of atheists ready to make the case that God doesn't exist because science, and evolutionary biology in particular, have replaced the need for a God to explain where we came from.
It's interesting to me that we don't hear much from those folks here on FR. IMO it's because they're not here. They're over on DU or out bar-hopping.
That statement is not true.
I only questioned if it is valid to attack a position by questioning the authors motives - seems like fallacious logic to me.
Using motive to defeat a position makes about as much sense as if you answer a question correctly on a test but your motive was to get it wrong than the question should be marked wrong since motive is all that matters.
If we were creatures of pure reason it would be, but we are not.
The author asserts that "Darwinism is first and foremost a weapon against religion". There is no objective evidence provided in the article in support of such an assertion, and it appears to be a purely subjective determination. The author has implicitly imputed the most malicious of motives to the authors and proponent of the TToE by making such a claim. You're asking that he be granted license to do so by virtue of his credentials, and his own motives in doing so held beyond reproach. I don't see how there can be a civil debate on the content of the article under such circumstances.
Gould is one person. Evolution is not Gould, and evolution makes no reference to a deity or lack thereof.
Evolution is a forensic statement about history, and it is a process. It is true that the history asserted by evolution conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis.
It is also true that physics conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible. Same with astronomy. Same with geology.
Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth.
How are these not anti-religious?
But they do not accept evolution when it invades their turf. Such as suggesting that individuals differ in their abilities.
open your eyes!
Amazing how if someone doesn't agree with another's point of view, they must have their eyes closed. From my viewpoint, my eyes are open, while others are blocked by wearing blinders (tunnel vision).
You know, you throw that kind of stuff around on these threads, but it is nonsense and you know it.
TToE is one of the most advanced areas of scientific inquiry. The evidence for TToE dwarfs other hard sciences such as Physics. The more evidence is compiled the framework of TToE is strengthened while details are filled in, adjusted, etc.
A blanket assertion of your type is merely willful ignorance. "Nya Nya" works for Lucy van Pelt but doesn't really cut it here.
From my viewpoint, my eyes are open,
After what I've read the past several days, you could have fooled me. It seems to me you came onto these threads with your mind made up.
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.