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
The lack of evidence that the earth is the center of the universe..you are familiar with this, no?
I try to supplant my deficiencies with humor, wit and in the extreme, DRIPPING sarcasm
Respectfully, this isn't a very good answer. Notice that the mudskipper has little legs with feet in the front and is mobile out of water. Also, are you saying that it can't be transitional because it's alive? At what point do you determine that something is "done" "evolving?"
So you have no idea how life got here and yet claim to know everything that happened thereafter?
I have a Scientific Theory, supported by evidence and proper application of scientific principles that provides a general picture of how species now in existance became as they are.
I leave "knowing everything" to those (humans anyway) who know nothing.
That woulld explain SOOOO much in my life! ;)
Charles, are you back from the dead?
No, but thank you for the compliment. Darwin was one of the greatest thinkers in recorded history. His assembling of available information into a cogent theory was the MENTAL equivalent of the "747 out of a tornado in a junkyard" analogy that the CR/IDers learned not to run.
Well if you are not Charles, then all you really have is what you are told. The basic problem is at the molecular level. So here you go Jr, what was the first form of life?
You are missing the point. Scientific theories are not all encompassing. They explain a certain set of phenomena and let other theories handle the rest. For example, the theory of plate tectonics doesn't include star formation. The theory of evolution do not include the origin of life because 1) we don't know, and 2) it doesn't matter.
God could have made the first organisms, then evolution happened. TToE still stands.
Natural processes could have made the first organisms, then evolution happened. TToE still stands.
Super advanced aliens from another dimension could have made the first organisms, then evolution happened. TToE still stands.
So you see, the origin of life is a moot point. Now matter how it happened, evolution still took place afterward.
Strawmen don't cut it here. And if you want to play the sophomore "what is life" game, I can FReepmail you a list of people who will play (although I think Dan likes to play).
We ALL have what "we are told." I guess it is POSSIBLE (for example) that we never landed on the Moon and it was all done in a Hollywood studio.
But the evidence is that we really went.
And you have already been pinged with some pretty good speculation on the beginning of life, sonny.
But as I told you, that has nothing to do with TToE. Your childish clutching onto the apron strings of what you think makes your case doesn't change a thing -- it just makes you look desperate and ignorant.
Sorry I wasted your time I thought you might actually know what you are talking about.
Some friendly advice to you. Learn the subject before you make your ignorance known the the entire Internet.
Conflating Abiogenesis with Evolution is like conflating the creation of the Universe with sunspot activity. Perhaps related but the study of the latter is not dependent on the former.
Also, your continued hammering of "so where did Life come from" tells us all that you can't take on TToE on its merits, so you create a Strawman (which burns so easily).
Just some friendly advice to help you not look so silly next time.
LOL -- bombast in place of analysis (and, we assume, lack of knowledge). Just because you don't understand the subject, don't substitute another. Just admit you don't understand and we can all move on.
And you are free to show us all the "critical flaws" in TToE. We are all eyes.
You are the one who can't answer the questions. So I now leave you in your Bliss!
I can answer the ones that aren't rooted in a strawman.
And with that I leave you in your ignorance.
Buenos Noches. FD2003
"It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science>"
And why faith in such things for me remains quite elusive.