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
I'm still waiting for the "evidence" for your claims that man evolved from some lower life form. A picture of a series of skulls didn't impress me in college, and they still don't impress me. I don't understand why you are so ready to accept common decent when the fossil record is sooooo incomplete when it comes to providing those "transitional" fossils that would clearly indicate a progression of skelatal changes which must be there somewhere if common decent is true.
Is my mind made up? No. Has the evidence been presented as requested? NO!
Unless you are a Biblical scholar and have read the Bible in its original languages (and understand the contextual subtleties in those languages), there is no way for you to know exactly what God said.
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!!!
It depends on the context. The purpose of the Bible is to provide spiritual direction. It interacts with history but is always looking at the soul. Thus from a spiritual basis one gets the message pretty clearly: God created the Universe and filled the void. Man was pretty late in the game. Man is here to love God. Woman and Man are for each other. And the whole thing is about Love. Lingustic subtelties don't matter at that level. And in general, the framework established by Genesis is, IMHO, quite correct. But scholar's can't even agree on the original language use of the word "day" in the original language.
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.
Jesus did indeed affirm the Old Testament. It is the foundation for His work and words. But by saying "yes, all that is correct" doesn't add clarity, just authority.
I mean, there are two versions of The Ten Commandments! The Bible contradicts itself "factually" all over the place. Even the story of the road to Damascus has two different versions (which gets worse when read in the original).
This isn't God lying to anyone. It is using a spiritual guide to address non-spiritual matters.
IOW, you will keep moving the goal posts.
Is my mind made up? No. Has the evidence been presented as requested? NO!
There is no amount of evidence to "prove" what you are trying to prove. And that has never been a requirement.
You do know that the Atomic Bomb was built based almost completely on theory and inference. Before the first one went off, there was a lot of conjecture on what could happen (up to and including cataclysm).
With your kind of thinking it never would have been built.
I choose to conclude, based on logical reasoning and analysis, that the evidence, in general, proves the theory.
Ken Ham takes the same evidence and reaches manifestly illogical and ridiculous conclusions.
Some may choose to call him an idiot. They may be right. If he truly believes what he says, then I guess he's not lying. He's just a moron.
Evolution cannot be pro- or anti- ANYTHING. It is a theory, not a person. it is no more anti-religious than mathematics.
Here is evidence it is anti-religious: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." - Stephen Jay Gould
Straw man. That is evidence that a person can USE TToE to push an anti-religion agenda.
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.
So if there is one false Christian minister then all of Christianity is false?
Non sequitur of the highest order. Biggest one we have seen on these threads in quite some time (and that is saying something).
Gould came from a family of Marxist atheists. So his views on the matter were fixed long before he became a scientist.
Evolution is a theory that is religion-neutral. Therefore "evolution is anti-religious" IS a false statement.
You:When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.
Me:Since this is what you require, please define this 'missing link' in detail sufficient to potentially classify any future discovery as being 'your' missing link. Please be as detailed in your description as possible.
If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting. You state you require specific evidence to convince you, and that nothing presented to date is sufficient, yet you will not describe, in any detail at all much less detail sufficient to identify it as such, what this evidence would be, while claiming all of the evidence presented to you is insufficient.
The methods and scientific processes are the same. The reasoning is the same. The use of "evidence" and theorizing is the same. How do you think miracle drugs get invented? It is from understanding the underlying fundamentals of TToE and applying those foundations.
You are comparing apples and oranges in order to try to obtain orangutans.
To save time, do you just put your goal posts on roller skates?
'Having eyes they do not see, having ears they do not hear...'
But with respect to a belief in evolution, I don't think abortion and evolution have the same genetic origin. And a belief in evolution is not a psychological trait unless you include general, rational thought as a psychological trait. To select against evolution would require selection against scientific rationality in general. You cannot reject one result of science selectively. Empirically, I've seen this in action. My co-workers, fellow scientists, who are ardent creationists, are also the worst for designing controlled experiments. Those who see evolution as scientifically valid are also the most skilled in experimental design and have advanced more than the creation absolutists. But if evolution, for whatever reason, offered the intellectually challeneged greater reporductive advantage, then future generations will become more intellectually challenged. The population will become more and more stupid and society will collectively forget why stupidity blossoms. Then, when greater intellect and rationality confir greater reproductive success, the balance will swing back.
When I see that sort of thing, I remember that scene in "Short Circuit" where the doctors explain that Number 5 "doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad. It just runs programs."
Perhaps we are getting a glimpse of what we are up against. The Anthropomorphism of a school of thought.
"If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting."
Then my request of where are the "transitional" fossil remains of those creatures between what has been found to date is not a sufficient answer to what I'm asking for?
Think. What are the reported time periods between what scientists have uncovered to date? If these fossil remains are, according to common decent" linked by evolution to each other, then would you not reasonably predict that there would be fossilized remains between each of those found in the fossil record in light of the fact that the evolutionary changes are small over any given period of time?
Think. The differences in the present fossilized remains on record are huge. There must be fossilized remains which are closer and closer approximations going out from the oldest to the most modern which would show the evolution from one to the other. It is the fact that between the current fossilized remains exist no other fossilized remains, despite the expansive time between each, which puzzles me. It is this question to which I seek answers.
And having brains they do not reason.
"Perhaps we are getting a glimpse of what we are up against. The Anthropomorphism of a school of thought."
I'd be interested in an explanation of what you believe that human qualities are being ascribed to with regard to this topic.
Unfortunately, geologic realities sour your supposition. 'The Fossil Record' is not a library like The Library of Congress; its more like digging through the ruins of Pompey. The record is fragmentary, partly because only a tiny, tiny, tiny, percent of animals/plants are EVER fosilized, then you have erosion through the eons destroying much of the record, and, finally, most of the record is inaccessible because it is buried deep underground, under the sea, or inside mountains.
However, even given the paucity of available remains, evidence of evolution is irrefutable - ever seen the fossils showing the evolution of the horse - from a small mammal with 5 toes to the horse we see today?
If you won't believe THAT evidence then (to use a paraphrase), you wouldn't believe if one rose from the dead....
Improved the tag line...
From the article itself:
"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."
I am really trying to stay on topic here. I stand by my earlier response.
So, there is no chance that, instead of the evolution of the horse to what we see today, we are looking at different animals which lived during different periods of time and which are only related superficially?
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.