Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: stultorum

Sorry stultorm, but you have been hoodwinked. The Darwin recant is a well documented hoax.


601 posted on 09/28/2006 5:56:11 PM PDT by TOWER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

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.


602 posted on 09/28/2006 5:57:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: TOWER

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.


603 posted on 09/28/2006 5:58:26 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

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.

604 posted on 09/28/2006 6:05:08 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Darwinism was doomed from it's conception.

Unfortunately it will have deceived many before it returns to the ash-heap of lies it came from.

605 posted on 09/28/2006 6:06:07 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
There is no other conclusion. You don't get to say "well, 1+1=3 and that is my opinion."

The theory ( emphasis ) of evolution is not the same as 1 + 1 =2. That is why REASONABLE PEOPLE DISPUTE IT. Wrong analogy.

You can have an opinion, but you need to defend it if it deals with science.

Agree. That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence.

We have so-called conservatives who fight FOR willful ignorance and embrace and accelerate the dumbing down of America.

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 ?

If "moonbat wing" doesn't fit scientists who should know better, then who can the tag be applied to?

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.
606 posted on 09/28/2006 6:08:01 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
Darwin, himself, in the end, didn't believe his own theory and turned to God.

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.

607 posted on 09/28/2006 6:11:37 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

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.


608 posted on 09/28/2006 6:12:44 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
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.

Reminds me of you-know-who, the eternal psychobabble sophomore (whom I won't name since I don't want to ping).

609 posted on 09/28/2006 6:13:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence.

Evidence for evolution has been presented. That you dismiss the evidence without examining it is not the same as it never having been presented at all.
610 posted on 09/28/2006 6:14:11 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
(Another thread, another ping. I'm not trying to pick on you.)

Here's an interesting statement on evolution from a real mathematician: Yockey. Source. (boldface mine)


DATE: 13 Nov 2000

From:
Hubert P. Yockey

Subject: Your Review of Information Theory and Molecular Biology

Dear Gert:
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. (**)
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.

Yours very sincerely, Hubert P. Yockey


611 posted on 09/28/2006 6:15:25 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Evidence for evolution has been presented. That you dismiss the evidence without examining it is not the same as it never having been presented at all.

Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DOUBT BY MANY SCIENTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
612 posted on 09/28/2006 6:15:46 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"Agree. That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence."

Well, science museums and libraries are overflowing with evidence; when is the 'other side' going to produce any?

613 posted on 09/28/2006 6:16:11 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Science and Religion are unrelated disciplines and are not philosophically contradictory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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.

Its kind of like an incantation, or imitative magic. If you say it often enough perhaps it will come to pass.

614 posted on 09/28/2006 6:16:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Well, science museums and libraries are overflowing with evidence; when is the 'other side' going to produce any?

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue. Both sides look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions.
615 posted on 09/28/2006 6:18:50 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting.

What reasonable rebuttals have been presented to the conclusions drawn from ERV insertions across primate species found to match previously established lines of descent?
616 posted on 09/28/2006 6:19:24 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue. Both sides look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions."

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......

617 posted on 09/28/2006 6:22:20 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Science and Religion are unrelated disciplines and are not philosophically contradictory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
The theory ( emphasis ) of evolution is not the same as 1 + 1 =2. That is why REASONABLE PEOPLE DISPUTE IT. Wrong analogy.

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.

618 posted on 09/28/2006 6:22:38 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue. Both sides look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions.

OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

619 posted on 09/28/2006 6:23:26 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
What reasonable rebuttals have been presented to the conclusions drawn from ERV insertions across primate species found to match previously established lines of descent?

Written rebuttals have been presented in many sites.

Here are two :

www.discovery.org

www.arn.org

Books have been written.

Debates have been organized in colleges, universities, institutions and churches.

By all means, let's examine them and see which one best fits the evidence.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans seem to remain unconvinced with Darwinism.
620 posted on 09/28/2006 6:23:57 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Here's one for you from Halton Arp. He's the guy who discovered that redshift didn't equal distance and was refused telescope time for his discovery.

Such is how 'science' treats dissenters.

http://www.haltonarp.com/

Here's his Wiki entry for an easier read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Then see Tifft for his work on 'quantized' redshifts, which mean that redshifts don't represent distance, but some other quality of the object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

There are a lot more opinions of the evidence that 'standard science' would admit.

These guys are particularly interesting.

http://www.holoscience.com/

Have fun...


621 posted on 09/28/2006 6:23:58 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DOUBT BY MANY SCIENTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

A itty bitty tiny weensie percentage is not "many." Oh, and almost none of those "scientists" are in the Life Sciences.

622 posted on 09/28/2006 6:24:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue.

Just wondering when that other interpretation is going to make an appearance. Or is this what you meant.. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

623 posted on 09/28/2006 6:25:16 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

NO, let's here yours, this will indeed be a dandy.
624 posted on 09/28/2006 6:25:38 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans seem to remain unconvinced with Darwinism.

Because they don't like the conclusion and/or they (incorrectly) think it conflicts with The Bible.

625 posted on 09/28/2006 6:26:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Or is this what you meant..

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.
626 posted on 09/28/2006 6:26:35 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

You want me to go back over TToE for you?


627 posted on 09/28/2006 6:26:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
You want me to go back over TToE for you?
628 posted on 09/28/2006 6:27:26 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

Please tell us what it gets wrong.

629 posted on 09/28/2006 6:28:03 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
You want me to go back over TToE for you?

You want me to go back to the ID rebuttal for you ?
630 posted on 09/28/2006 6:28:31 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Yes, one who is still waiting for that bit of evidence that heliocentrism is uniquely true and one who stands with Sir Fred Hoyle who wrote:

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416, (Quoted in Spring, 02 BA, p.64.)


631 posted on 09/28/2006 6:28:33 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

The floor is yours.

632 posted on 09/28/2006 6:29:06 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Whatever gets it into evidence.

(I'm watching L&O right now)

;)


633 posted on 09/28/2006 6:29:11 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Please tell us what it gets wrong.

Iders look at the same evidence but come up with the conclusion that Random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce the complexity of life as we see it. THAT's WHATs wrong. IDers don't go to the Bible at all. Many IDers are agnostic.
634 posted on 09/28/2006 6:30:01 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I am unable to locate any articles rebutting current conclusions drawn from observation of ERV insertion patterns across primate species at either www.discovery.org or www.arn.org. Could you direct me to an article that I may have overlooked?


635 posted on 09/28/2006 6:30:26 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
You want me to go back to the ID rebuttal for you ?

Oh yes, please do. And don't forget to list the peer-reviewd journals that identify the ways in which ID is testable and falsifiable (to name two of the criteria necessary for a theory).

636 posted on 09/28/2006 6:30:33 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

I posted a discussion by a well respected mathematician and biologist -- someone who is often cited by critics of evolution. He is generally regarded as fair-minded by evolution critics. You have almost certainly read his book on information theory. what do you think? Post 611

637 posted on 09/28/2006 6:31:14 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Oops, I posted that to the wrong person. Here it is again

I posted a discussion by a well respected mathematician and biologist -- someone who is often cited by critics of evolution. He is generally regarded as fair-minded by evolution critics. You have almost certainly read his book on information theory. what do you think? Post 611

638 posted on 09/28/2006 6:33:03 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Iders look at the same evidence but come up with the conclusion that Random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce the complexity of life as we see it. THAT's WHATs wrong. IDers don't go to the Bible at all. Many IDers are agnostic.

Ah. Agnostic but believing in some sort of Q Continuum interloper. By defintion this is neither falsifiable nor testable.

You have but to produce the Designer for an interview and ID wins the day. But if said Dsigner keeps skulking in the shadows, ID is useless as a scientific idea and fails as a Scientific Theory.

639 posted on 09/28/2006 6:33:09 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Its kind of like an incantation, or imitative magic. If you say it often enough perhaps it will come to pass.

Exactly. Those who profess hollow and Godless theories like evolution believe they can make a lie into fact by repeating it with enough personal conviction.

Unfortunately they insist on following this fable to it's ultimate doom.

640 posted on 09/28/2006 6:33:24 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: js1138

He echoed me, so it is easy to misfire.


641 posted on 09/28/2006 6:33:46 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Those who profess hollow and Godless theories like evolution believe they can make a lie into fact by repeating it with enough personal conviction.

IOW if you put your fingers in your ears and go "Nya Nya" loud enough, the data and supporting conclusions will go away (or be banished since we all know science is a popularity contest).

TToE is neither Godless nor Godful. It is silent on God.

642 posted on 09/28/2006 6:35:26 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

You think what Fred Hoyle said, in or out of context, at one point in time, is evidence of your nutty idea that the earth is the center of the universe? Let's cut this short. Just give us all the core, the kernel, the basis for your assertion that defies all scientific evidence, that the earth is the center of the universe.


643 posted on 09/28/2006 6:35:45 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

TESTABILITY AND FALISFIABLITY :

Here is what Dembski said about it :



http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1010

SEE HERE ALSO :

THIS IS HIS RESPONSE TO THE TESTABILITY QUESTION POST BY GEORGE WILL :





Dear Mr. Will:

In the July 4th, 2005 issue of Newsweek, you offered the following criticism of intelligent design (ID):

>Today’s proponents of “intelligent design” theory are
>doing nothing novel when they say the complexity of
>nature is more plausibly explained by postulating a
>designing mind—a.k.a. God—than by natural adapta-
>tion and selection…. The problem with intelligent-
>design theory is not that it is false but that it is not
>falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting
>evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is
>not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith,
>unsuited to a public school’s science curriculum.

As for intelligent design bringing nothing new to the discussion of complexity in nature, this claim is difficult to sustain. Darwin, in his Origin of Species, wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ID, in arguing for design on the basis of complexity, takes up Darwin’s gauntlet. But it does so by looking to novel results from molecular biology and novel methods for assessing the complexity and design characteristics of such systems.

My own book with Cambridge University Press (1998) titled The Design Inference is a case in point. Ask yourself why Cambridge would publish this book if indeed there was nothing new in it. Or consider, why would scholars such as William Wimsatt or Jon Jarrett, neither of whom are ID advocates, offer the following duskjacket endorsements (endorsements for which they have endured considerable heat from Darwinists):

>Dembski has written a sparklingly original book.
>Not since David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning
>Natural Religion has someone taken such a close
>look at the design argument, but it is done now in
>a much broader post-Darwinian context. Now we
>proceed with modern characterizations of proba-
>bility and complexity, and the results bear funda-
>mentally on notions of randomness and on
>strategies for dealing with the explanation of radically
>improbable events. We almost forget that design
>arguments are implicit in criminal arguments
>”beyond a reasonable doubt,” plagiarism, phylogenetic
>inference, cryptography, and a host of other modern
>contexts. Dembski’s analysis of randomness is the most
>sophisticated to be found in the literature, and his
>discussions are an important contribution to the theory
>of explanation, and a timely discussion of a neglected
>and unanticipatedly important topic.
>–William Wimsatt, University of Chicago

>In my view, Dembski has given us a brilliant study of
>the precise connections linking chance, probability,
>and design. A lucidly written work of striking insight
>and originality, The Design Inference provides significant
>progress concerning notoriously difficult questions. I
>expect this to be one of those rare books that genuinely
>transforms its subject.
>–Jon P. Jarrett, University of Illinois at Chicago

Your deeper concern is that intelligent design is not science because it is not testable. If ID were not testable, you would have a point. But the fact is that ID is eminently testable, a fact that is easy to see.

To test ID, it is enough to show how systems that ID claims lie beyond the reach of Darwinian and other evolutionary mechanisms are in fact attainable via such mechanisms. For instance, ID proponents have offered arguments for why non-teleological evolutionary mechanisms should be unable to produce systems like the bacterial flagellum (see chapter 5 of my book No Free Lunch [Rowman & Littlefield, 2002] and Michael Behe’s essay in my co-edited collection titled Debating Design [Cambridge, 2004]). Moreover, critics of ID have tacitly assumed this burden of proof — see Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God (Harper, 1999) or Ian Musgrave’s failed attempt to provide a plausible evolutionary story for the bacterial flagellum in Why Intelligent Design Fails (Rutgers, 2004).

Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design.

Unhappy with thus allowing ID on the playing field of science, evolutionary theorist now typically try the following gambit: Intelligent design, they say, constitutes an argument from ignorance or god-of-the-gaps, in which gaps in the evolutionary story are plugged by invoking intelligence. But if intelligent design by definition constitutes such a god-of-the-gaps, then evolutionary theory in turn becomes untestable, for in that case no failures in evolutionary explanation or positive evidence for ID could ever overturn evolutionary theory.

I cited earlier Darwin’s well-known statement, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Immediately after this statement Darwin added, “But I can find out no such case.” Darwin so much as admits here that his theory is immune to disconfirmation. Indeed, how could any contravening evidence ever be found if the burden of proof on the evolution critic is to rule out all conceivable evolutionary pathways — pathways that are left completely unspecified.

In consequence, Darwin’s own criterion for defeating his theory is impossible to meet and effectively shields his theory from disconfirmation. Unless ID is admitted onto the scientific playing field, mechanistic theories of evolution win the day in the absence of evidence, making them a priori, untestable principles rather than inferences from scientific evidence.

Bottom line: For a claim to ascertainably true it must be possible for it to be ascertainably false. The fate of ID and evolutionary theory, whether as science or non-science, are thus inextricably bound. No surprise therefore that Darwin’s Origin of Species requires ID as a foil throughout.

Sincerely,
Bill Dembski


644 posted on 09/28/2006 6:36:12 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

Thank you.

As an X-evolutionist it grieves me to the degree of self deception they resort to in order to maintain their fables.

I thank God that He rescued me from the deceit of evolution. I have never looked back, nor doubted creation and God's Word since that day.

645 posted on 09/28/2006 6:37:58 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
TToE is neither Godless nor Godful. It is silent on God.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you will believe it one day.

646 posted on 09/28/2006 6:39:20 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Do you believe that repeating the lie that the theory of evolution is "Godless", despite the clear evidence that the statement is false, constitutes a valid, logical argument?


647 posted on 09/28/2006 6:41:14 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Ah. Agnostic but believing in some sort of Q Continuum interloper. By defintion this is neither falsifiable nor testable. You have but to produce the Designer for an interview and ID wins the day. But if said Dsigner keeps skulking in the shadows, ID is useless as a scientific idea and fails as a Scientific Theory.

HA HA HA, and you have produced the testable and repeatable random mutation plus natural selection producing life ? Producing complexity ?

That would be news to me.
648 posted on 09/28/2006 6:41:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Jorge, in what reality does evolution (as a theory) deny the existence of God? I will agree that there may be evolutionary scientists who might deny it, but the theory itself has no opinion on creationism or order from chaos theories. It simply attempts to explain the order of life on this planet.


649 posted on 09/28/2006 6:41:34 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

So Dembski disengenuously feels that TToE should be immune from the same standards as all the other branches of science.

Can you imagine allowing ID into Chemistry? Physics? Astronomy?

No, only Evolution has the Q reaching in to meddle.

ID is a theology not a scientific pursuit. It is the same thing as saying "God did this."


650 posted on 09/28/2006 6:53:56 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,151-1,195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson