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
How did you ever acheive such gymnastics of illogical thought? So you are saying that there is a gene responsible for scientific rationality and that it will be selected out by abortion? SO you do believe in evolution. But you clearly have no idea what genetic science means.
In 1976, Jonathan Wells a student in Moon's seminary, answered his leader's call. Wells writes,
Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. Source.
99.99999% of it was prepared after a suitible period of thought and analysis by men who sought God.
If you want a hard and fast rule book handed down directly by God to Man, then you ought to spend your time with the Koran and not the Bible.
No, the truth is that the theory of evolution and the principle of the 'survival of the fittest' has been hijacked by atheists bent on domination (Stalin, Hitler).
The theory of evolution, based on scientific observation and logical analysis, is RELIGION-NEUTRAL.
And its also the truth that the "Young-Earth Evos" (evangelicals) are tilting at a windmill instead of focusing their efforts on the real enemy....
My point is that you disagreed with him and then said the same thing in different words, with a little OP-ed at the beginning and end.
>>First, tell me what the Bible says.<<
It's all there.
"Traditional Christianity" is/was the Catholic Church. I thought Protestantism was developed to destroy that particular entity, and long before Darwin's time too!(/sarcasm)
I think your leg got pulled.
With respect, that's a cop out.
As long as science keeps moving forward and doesn't settle on the Darwinian theory for all its answers, then fine.
Dogma is a terrible thing and confuses greater issues.
Bet you think Holy Rollers use snakes in church too.
Two things you need to do ~ learn something about Christianity, and secondly, get a cage for your mongoose.
Our solar system itself evolved and formed over great time. We have learned that our solar system is not unique. I see no reason for supernatural explainations stepping in at some point after billions of years to create humans after hundreds of millions of years reign of dinosaurs and other life. Freedom of beliefs we have in this nation. And we are all free to base our beliefs on whatever we choose, faith, science or otherwise. Some combine the two even. I respect everyones beliefs. But I choose what makes the most logical sense to me based on all evidence presented by all sides.
I don't believe I did. The question isn't what Darwinism (more properly, evolution) is. I agree that it is about decending from a common ancestor. What I disagree with is the incompatibility with Christianity.
Susceptability to different types of idea or philosophy could easily be biologically based. Indeed, if survival is enhanced by having certain points of view, then evolution guarantees that organisms who tend towards those points of view will be selected for. A mechanism to steer the organism toward those points of view will develop if at all possible. For example, humans are born with a fear of snakes and loud noises because those fears aided survival. There is no reason to suppose that some people are born with a tendency to be swayed by one kind of idea over another.
This means that the rumor about the death of Common Sense has been greatly exaggerated.
Ok, what secret decoder ring do you use to determine allegory from textbook-style facts? I am not bashing the Bible - but it is not that simple.
Actually, as a 'recovering born-again Christian', I know more about it than you'd think. I've personally ,et some of the biggest names in born-again Christianity, and I am sad to say that for every Billy Graham there are 5 or 6 hucksters, making it up as they go along.
I'll never forget Creflo Dollar asking people to come up and leave $$$$ at the feet of the preacher whose church he was guest-speaking at, or Kenneth Copeland telling the story of how God told him to buy a million-dollar airplane and then how his congregation made it happen.
True, not all evangelicals believe the earth is 5000 years old. I've seen John Haggee bend over backwards to demonstrate that BOTH the Bible is literally true AND the earth could have had a billion-year history BEFORE Adam and Eve.
So stupid. So very, very, stupid.
If you're offended by my tag line, so be it. The most violent, abusive, individual that I have ever had the misfortune to be associated with (yes, its an ex-wife, you guessed it!) was a Bible-thumping, holier-than-though born-again Christian (OBTW, did you know that she is the only perfect Christian on planet earth? No? Well that's the impression she'd give you. And if you disagreed and tried to discuss it with her, you just might find your mouth meeting her fist.)
And you know what is even more bizarre? She had an IQ of 150 and worked in the medical field (ie had a scientific background). So she was so F-ed up on so-many levels, with so many contradictions, someone could probably write a 500-page case-study just on her!
As far as evolution goes, I'll just say that Pope John Paul The Great's statement on the subject is one I agree with.
And, as an aside, I would suggest you look into one of the two wings of the real church (ie. Catholic or Orthodox). I'm not saying that all Protestants believe in heresies, mind you, but as far as the current crop of American evangelicals, well....if the shoe fits....
Time to abandon thread. Things are going to the dogs quickly.
I'm confused. I thought you'd feel right at home???? (Hint: 'Coyoteman' - get it?)
If this is your best argument, you should be afraid, very afraid.
Everybody who's not a catholic or a holyroller and claims Christian affiliation is either an evangelical or a mormon (whether they are right or wrong).
Now you've lost me. Unless you're being sarcastic, which I'm beginning to suspect....
I can't see how an even non-literal reading of Genesis 1-3 (and Jesus' reinforcement of that account) can support your thesis that Darwinistic evolution and Christianity are compatible. Consider, for example, the term "kind" used in Genesis. Explicitly incompatible with Darwin's theory.
Believe (even loosely) the Bible. Or believe Darwin. You really can't believe both.
Sorry, I guess I should have included the sarcasm tags. As far as it not being a logical conclusion of the claim, I'll argue that. If it is "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then it was conceived and constructed for that purpose from the outset.
>>With respect, that's a cop out.<<
I disagree. Strongly. If you claim it is compatible with the Bible, you must know what the bible says on the subject. You are asking the other side to prove a negative. We are merely asking you to prove a positive.
>>What I disagree with is the incompatibility with Christianity.<<
He did not say it was incompatible with Christianity. He said it precludes the need for a God Creator. However, I would most definitely say it is absolutely incompatible with Christianity.
It is also incompatible with reality.
And I can't see how your thesis that even a nonliteral reading of the Bible remains inconsistent with evolution.
Personally, I believe that God is quite clever, and wants us to be, too.
>>>It was a joke...may biblical literalists do believe that.>>>
I think that is more the case. You can believe that a creator is possible without taking the Bible literally (I think alot is Christian Mythology).
Unfortunately, the Darwinists want to feel soooo intellectually superior that they chose to make fun of anyone who doesn't adopt their theory as fact.
The cop out was in referring me to a website, and not succintly stating the point yourself.
Evolution is now a laboratory science. It makes no difference what its implications for religion are.
Religion will come to terms with evolution, as it did with heliocentrism, germ theory, anaesthesia, and other controversies.
"He said it precludes the need for a God Creator. "
That's what HE said. My point is that it does not.
>>The cop out was in referring me to a website, and not succintly stating the point yourself.<<
It is not a cop out. It is avoiding redundance. It's all there. Read it yourself. Heck, just stick with Genesis and note very carefully the words used and their actual dictionary meaning. Anybody who says darwinism is compatible with Christianity OR the Bible is grossly ignorant, either unintentionally or intentionally, of what the Bible actually says on the subject.
Choose multiple versions if you choose.
>>>The cop out was in referring me to a website, and not succintly stating the point yourself.>>>
What did you expect him to do? Post the entire Bible? Not gonna make the mods happy with that post.
>>"He said it precludes the need for a God Creator. "
That's what HE said. My point is that it does not.<<
Let me be more specific. His remark simply said that darwinism, if true, describes a world where there is not a NEED for a God Creator, not that there is not a God Creator.
I'm just following the logical implications of the author's claims, not agreeing with them.
We don't NEED ice cream, but we can't deny that it exists.
"What did you expect him to do? Post the entire Bible? Not gonna make the mods happy with that post. "
No, but a two sentence statement of beliefs would have been sufficient.
You're spinning, or missing my point.
But is has its uses.