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
Sorry stultorm, but you have been hoodwinked. The Darwin recant is a well documented hoax.
Now that I look, I see you are a n00b.
Your best bet is to remain silent so you don't make a fool out of yourself again. Read and ask questions. Learn.
Us Elders will watch over you if you are properly respectful.
It wasn't so much his repeating of the myth.
It was his response in 593 when I brought him up on it.
Arrogance doesn't help someone in this situation.
Well that explains a lot. It also means he is probably sober ;)
No doubt. One must be sober to hope to persuade anyone of such a claim. However, one might also hope that the audience wasn't entirely sober if one truly intended to profit, in any way, from such a claim.
Unfortunately it will have deceived many before it returns to the ash-heap of lies it came from.
As somebody else has pointed out, that's a myth. The Answers in Genesis website has an article on it: Did Darwin Recant?
From the end of the article:
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
I am curious. Do you believe that asserting that the theory of evolution is "doomed" actually demonstrates that the theory is doomed? If so, then you should be aware that you are mistaken. Merely saying that the theory of evolution is "doomed" does not actually demonstrate that the theory is, in fact, doomed.
Reminds me of you-know-who, the eternal psychobabble sophomore (whom I won't name since I don't want to ping).
Here's an interesting statement on evolution from a real mathematician: Yockey. Source. (boldface mine)
DATE: 13 Nov 2000
Hubert P. Yockey
Subject: Your Review of Information Theory and Molecular Biology
Dear Gert:I suggest you read the paper in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Perhaps you would then like to read some of Walther Löb's papers. Stanley Miller was not the first to find amino acids in the silent electrical discharge.
Thank for your review of my book Information Theory and Molecular Biology. This book is now out of print but I am working on the second edition.
You seem puzzled by my quotations of the Bible. Please note that I also quote Robert Frost, Homer's Iliad, the Mikado, Charles Darwin, Machiavelli''s The Prince, Plato, The Rubaiyat and other sources. When something was said 2000 years ago, it is plagiarism to say it again without quotation.
It is a viscous circle indeed! (*) But that is what we find by experiment. We are the product of nature not its judge. As Hamlet said to his friend: "There are many things, Horatio, between Heaven and Earth unknown in your philosophy."
See Gregory Chaitin's books "The Limits of Mathematics",1998 and "The Unknowable",1999 both Springer-Verlag. See also my comments on unknowability in Epilogue. We will never know what caused the Big Bang and we will never know what caused life.
By the way, I am indeed an anti-creationist becaue I believe that the origin of life is, like the Big Bang, a part of nature but is unknowable to man.
Taken all in all, especially for those who finished reading the review, it is very favorable.
Here is a list of my recent publications. If you send me your postal address I shall send you the Computers & Chemistry paper. That will explain why the recent data on the genomes of human and other organisms provide a mathematical proof of "Darwinism" beyond a reasonable doubt. (**)
Yours very sincerely, Hubert P. Yockey
Well, science museums and libraries are overflowing with evidence; when is the 'other side' going to produce any?
Its kind of like an incantation, or imitative magic. If you say it often enough perhaps it will come to pass.
OK, let me see if I understand:
a. Scientists gather the evidence;
b. Non-scientists then get to interpret it and dismiss the scientists' explanation;
Can someone help me out here? Something seems to be wrong with this analysis but I can't quite put my finger on it......
Willfully ignorant (but perhaps otherwise reasonable) people dispute it because it doesn't jive with their Holy Book or they don't understand it.
Agree. That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence.
TToE has literally millions of peices of evidence. If there is a part you don't understand, I can walk you through it. CR/IDers have -- faith (not evidence by any standard).
And you are assuming that these are ID supporters ? Our public schools have been saturated with nothing but EVOLUTION without any other ideas presented ( inspite of all the problems with it) for over 40 years. Of course our public schools have been very bad. What's your point ?
As I keep pointing out there are NO credible scientific alternatives to TToE (so much for the "problems with it"). Public School may be teaching it but it is constantly under attack from the Theocrats who want to put a State-sanctioned Religion in under the guise of an "alternative."
The very fact we have to have these discussions proves that willful ignorance is stronger that the scientific method.
The tag should only be applied to scientist who do not know better. Since you have not proven this to be the case with those who doubt Random mutation plus natural selection's ability to create the complexity of life, it doesn't apply here.
It is, of course, more comlplex than that, but a small number of so-called "scientists" (how many of them are in the Life Sciences by the way?) who should understand why TToE is currently the only explanation for the evidence are certainly so far out on the fringe that the tag applies.
OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.
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.