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 believe it now. And I am a Christian.
I assume this means you think the Earth is 6,000 years old? (I am asking to be sure).
TToE is not the same as Abogenesis.
Nice try though.
Its all going according to the plan laid out in The Wedge Strategy, leaked out of the Discovery Institute.
Yes it is. Nice to know our grandchildren will be looking to the future scientific meccas of Mexico, Vietnam and Nigeria for leadership and discoveries in the Life Sciences.
Nehemiah Scudder lives.
TToE is not the same as Abogenesis.
Unfortunately you can't have the one without the other.
What scientific evidence is that?
Apparently it's nothing but crickets, all the way down. An empty bit of nothing that MakesALotOfNoise.
Not true. You can have astronomy without the Origins of the Universe.
TToE does not deal with the origins of life. It deals with what happened after life began that led to humans.
Again, you have to look at the evidence. The picture the fossil record paints, combined with observed microevolution paint a clear picture and the forces that create that picture.
What preceded the picture isn't of direct importance.
Unfortunately you can't have the one without the other.
From a post by Dimensio here.
I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Evolution can proceed just fine with any of these five scenarios. Looks like you may be wrong.
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.
"That is why we man the logic ramparts. To keep America from dumb itself down even further."
Spending some time proof reading your post would be a good place to start with prevention of dumbing down America.
Except that TTOE did not create itself. It was created by human beings. It is not "just is" as you state. Without human beings having created the theory in the first place noone would be having any discussion regarding the theory.
For example ...
I am not advocating bad spelling as a proper course of learning. Individual goofs are not the same as a concerted attack on science.
All science is created by someone. TToE is no more pro- or anti- anything than mathematics (also created by human beings) is pro- or anti- anything.
Without human beings having created the theory in the first place noone would be having any discussion regarding the theory.
Without human beings having created the theory in the first place there would be a lot fewer of us here, since TToE is the basis for any real Life Science research, which has led to the life sustaining drugs and medical protocols that we take for granted.
Better a moron than a believer of the Big Lie.
"Merely saying that the theory of evolution is "doomed" does not actually demonstrate that the theory is, in fact, doomed.
So, how do you communicate the thought/idea that the theory of evolution is, indeed, dead, other than through communication, both written and oral, of the evidence?
That's the one!
Lady Hopes and someone else were testimony to Darwin's recanting of his theory, from what I've read in various sources.
Great testimony. It's only AFTER finding The Truth, can one see how they were deceived.
Off-topic: I couldn't find my posts! I was looking in the previous page. LOL! Well, I'm neither smart nor intelligent, hence my user name.
But I know one thing for sure: we did not descent (or is it ascend?) from monkies, as Darwin's theory asserts. The evidence? Go to a museum of natural history and there one will find all the evidence, if he/she's perceptive to discern the inconsistencies and distortions of Darwinists.
Got go now.
Good night and God bless you all.
Yeah! Don't buy into that moon landing nonsense!
Hey, I'm a follower of Big Lies and I don't mind saying so.
Wrong. "IT" can neither deny God nor does "IT" deny God. The person who uses evolution as a tool to deny God can and does do that. Evolution is not a living entity that can deny anything, it only serves as a method to explain life and it's many intricacies. Evolution has no "tenets" it merely has statements of fact and references to evidence that support the theory. Therefore, whether you want to attack Evolution as an evil entity out to deny the existense of God or not, Evolution can not nor will not care.
Yeah, well, so long as you don't "park your brain in neutral" after finding The Truth. God gave it to you for a reason. To USE it.
Well jeepers, Al, how 'bout a little credit for trying to be brave? Most biologists probably are believers of some sort, and think in terms of an overall divine plan, through some sort of guided evolution, but that's not the issue here. Believing that there is a divine plan doesn't necessarily interfere with one's study of the particular processes of evolution, any more than it necessarily interferes with one's study of history.
Creationists, perhaps, don't have a problem with micro-evolution, it's speciation that they can't accept, mainly because of its implications for the emergence of the human species. To preserve the special position of humankind within the order of nature, they have to insist that every species is the product of a special act of creation. Otherwise, one would not be preserving the uniformity of natural laws.
Clearly, there are still plenty of people who hang on to the notion of six days of creation, but they are not where the debate is. The Creationists who are actively opposed to Darwinism now talk of Intelligent Design, regardless of the time-scale involved. They insist that there are no transitional forms and that the complex systems of particular species are irreducible, so that they could have no function in a half-complete state.
The problem is that even high school biology teachers don't generally know much about evolutionary mechanisms, so the slide from a notion of guided evolution into pure Intelligent Design is an easy transition.
The Creationists are not all fools, by any means, but even their best arguments are shoddy special pleading, for the most part.
Most biologists, paleontologists and physical anthropologists in the US, whether they are believers or not, have no particular problem with the religion-evolution relationship.
There are a few biologists, mostly in the UK it seems to me, who insist that evolution abolishes God. That seems to me to be as thickheaded a position as that of the most dyed-in-the-wool Creationists.
Unfortunately, the hardline "Science Disproves God" crowd do far more to strengthen support for Creationism than any argument made by the Creationists.
That is not true - the author provides some evidence in the form of a quote from a famous evolutionist. You do understand you are trying to argue against somebodies qualitative option. While I don't agree with everything is the article, you do seem to be misrepresenting what it says. Try using quotes. You have yet to provide supporting evidence for your claims.
This statement makes no sense - you asked about the difference between two statements is which God is mentioned in one and not the other. Only people can express options - theories can't talk - be they Neo-Darwinist or not. It is obvious many Darwinists are very anti-religion.
Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth.
I have no idea what you are rambling about but it sure does sound like you don't have any children - do you think childbirth is painless?
How are these not anti-religious?
Not sure what you are rambling about. Many evolutionists are very anti-religion.