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
Strangely, none of your replies to me have been directed to anyone else.
Since you don't seem to be able to say specifically what it is about my question you disagree with, have you simply decided to irritate me as some kind of demonstration to everyone else?
So? You jumped into the middle of the thread - I merely replied to your statements. My point was you are not the only one on the Evo side that is talking positions so all statements do not necessarily apply to you personally.
Since you don't seem to be able to say specifically what it is about my question you disagree with you disagree with
Which question are you talking about now?
BTW: how does one disagree with a question?
have you simply decided to irritate me as some kind of demonstration to everyone else?
Like I said - it is not all about you.
Bozo was singular.
And of course you're not a creo. No one is. LOL
And I'm done with you.
You started the attacks.
LVD claims he's not a creo. :)
I'm one... I KNOW God exists, beyond that, I don't know if he has a plan or not.
Oh! You got me - although it was two days ago.
OK, here we go:
Would you feel comfortable having surgery if your anesthesiologist started talking about the aliens who are stealing his thoughts?
Did Wells claim his thoughts were being stolen?
Do you have a point?
And aliens built the pyramids.
There's a book on that too...
As far as I know the initial question I posed to you was settled equitably. The argument we have now is over my disagreeing with the author's statements and conclusions about Darwinism being "first and foremost a weapon against religion". You claim that you neither agree with nor support these statements, but insist on trying to tell me that I am wrong and that there does indeed exist sufficient evidence in the article to support those conclusions. This seems to be done simply to serve as a warning to anyone else who would have the termerity to express an opinion that it is not explicitly pro-Creationism.
Are you claiming I am? Based on what?
Evo do like empty accusations.
I am neither Evo or Crevo - I point out the BS on both sides. Although Evo's seem to be more entertaining when they squirm.
But that's a faith supposition, not a scientific one. I don't look for science to ever prove that, nor can it. Its certainly possible, and since I believe in God, I have no problem with the evidence for evolution, because He is the ultimate designer of the Universe. Given the vastness of the Universe, I am skeptical that God is involved in the minutiae of our everyday lives...I guess you can say that it seems to me that if one believes in God, you've got to admit that it sure looks like he let the system that He created run on its own, at least most of the time...
I have never made any statement in support (or non-support) of that statement.
You claim that you neither agree with nor support these statements, but insist on trying to tell me that I am wrong and that there does indeed exist sufficient evidence in the article to support those conclusions.
I believe your position was there is no supporting evidence for the authors statement - you were wrong - I pointed this out.
This seems to be done simply to serve as a warning to anyone else who would have the termerity to express an opinion that it is not explicitly pro-Creationism.
You are acting like a lunatic - you cannot read my thoughts.
"anyone else who would have the termerity" - termerity sounds serious?
Please restate your position.
He came from a family of old-line Marxist agitators, he was raised to be an atheist, and he took that belief in with him when he became a scientist.
So its not science that turned Gould into an atheist; atheism is a belief that he had previously, which he tried to further justify through his science.....
Did anybody claim Gould became an atheist because of evolution?
Hmmmmmm......can't really understand your point....are you a woman perchance?
Why? Didn't you understand it well enough the first three or four times? We apparently have no disagreement over the content of the article.
You say you neither agree with nor support the statements made by the author that I am questioning. The only thing you I have done that you will not do, and seem to take issue with my doing is to challenge them publicly.
Your message is clear enough. Public criticism of pro-Creationist or anti-Evolution arguments will not be tolerated, even if those arguments are not objectively supportable. Even if you disagree with them privately, they must not be challenged publicly.
Ummm....I think I have a LITTLE experience in logical analysis, Dog.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Theory of Evolution is NOT a person. Therefore the above analogy is invalid. The Theory of Evolution does not take any position on the existence of God or on religion.
Therefore the Theory of Evolution CANNOT be anti-religion.....it may be USED to that end by some people, but we are talking about THE THEORY here, not about THE PEOPLE who believe in it.
All clear now? You're welcome.
I have had enough of this nonsense - rather than state your position (whatever that might be), you find it necessary to ramble on with more tap-dancing.
Public criticism of pro-Creationist or anti-Evolution arguments will not be tolerated, even if those arguments are not objectively supportable.
You are really acting like a fool now. There is absolutely no basis for this nonsense and I challenge you to present supporting for your unsupported empty accusation. I am all but certain you are not up for the challenge.
Logic and reality do.
whatever - why don't you demonstrate your experience rather than brag about it?
You are comparing apples and oranges.
I am not comparing anything.
The Theory of Evolution is NOT a person
Never said it was, Mr. Einstein - I did not even make a statement on evolution - I commented on a statement somebody else made.
The Theory of Evolution does not take any position on the existence of God or on religion.
I never said it did - what the heck are you rambling on about?
Therefore the Theory of Evolution CANNOT be anti-religion
Never said it was.
All clear now?
It is clear you like to make empty unsupported accusations.
So you brag about your experience in logical analysis and then you make up statements that I never said and use them to support your nonsense conclusion. What happened to all your experience?
Troll then what?
Are you speaking Cavemanese?
You have stated that you don't agree with or support the author's statements that I have questioned. Tell us why you believe the author of this article is wrong.
If you can dish it out, you can take it.
That is a rather interesting question? I have taken no position on the article therefore you demand I take a position? You definitely operate on bizarre logic.
Whatever. I will play your game
I see no evidence to support this claim by Wells: "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."
I would like to see valid objections to the content of the article - I think personal attacks on Wells are silly and claims that the article is full of lies without presenting any evidence are pointless.
Now I answered your question - are you going to state your position.
Can you provide an example or is this yet another baseless empty accusation? Show me where I "dished it out"
The statement itself is an implicit indictment of both the authors and proponents of TToE and paints them as having constructed a fraudulent theory for the puppose of destroying religion, and I question why Wells would make such a statement without providing the evidence to back it up.
As usual, I either skipped this or missed it somehow.
Can you point me in the right direction to read this?
But it IS one of my favorite cartoons!
HOW do you 'know' there is a GOD and yet NOT 'know' if he (HE?) has a plan???
Then you, in your vast powers as a Human, have limited what your 'god' can do!
I do, however, tend to agree with this!
Darwin became, if not an atheist, at least an agnostic.
I wonder if they'll really, really feel that their choice of rebellion against God and His perfect Word was worth it then.
Go figure, huh? I guess it's worth it to pretend for a very short period that you know much more than God.
And that's the funny thing. Being wrong if one is a Christian costs one nothing (with the possible exception of having tried to live an exemplary life based upon one's Faith in Jesus Christ).
Those who kneel instead at the altar of Darwinism cannot say the same... what they risk for their twisted belief-structure (if they are wrong) is hardly worth the effort.
Pass the barbecue sauce...
I think you are trying to say *unique* evidence, not just evidence.
That was the point of Sir Fred Hoyle's quote:
"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.)
Do you understand what 'no physical significance' means?
Dude, I'm starting to worry about you. I suggest you check Post 726. It has your name on it. So, either I'm hallucinating, or someone has pinched your nic....
'Millenia of erosion' is, of course, consistent with a 6,000 year old earth. 'Millenia' being 1,000 years. I think you meant something different, but you did not state it correctly. Or perhaps you meant YEC because that's what you said.
And please, don't give us the 'evolution is teleological' argument. Evolution is not teleological and has no bias toward complexity.
Conspiracy is not required. Merely an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism. This *requires* long ages simply because 'evolution' cannot create humans in 6,000 years.
Faith in the unseen (abiogenesis, big bang, millions of years) is required for all religions, even pantheism.
You merely say that you believe that you must limit your acceptable theories to naturalistic ones. That's fine. You admit what most don't. In the end, it is a metaphysical choice. One that will definitely return the wrong answer if, in fact, you are observing a supernatural creation.
Are you able to understand that your metaphysical choice will return an incorrect answer if you are actually looking at a supernatural creation?
Then you, in your vast powers as a Human, have limited what your 'god' can do!"Touche!
Again, this metaphysical decision on your part will guarantee an incorrect conclusion if you are, in fact, trying to understand a supernatural creation.
Do you understand the limitation that you have placed on yourself?
I do not kneel at the altar of man, but only at the altar of God.
OBTW, some of the biggest knives in my back were placed there by people who concealed their (lack of) character behind an avalanche of 'born-again' lingo.
My advice to you is this: treat others as you would want to be treated, and you will bring people to a knowledge of The Word; open your mouth and you will drive them away.
This elemental rule applies to 90% of so-called evangelicals, many of whom (obviously) have not gained the "gift of discernment" judging by some of their statements...like yours above, for example...
I think you are trying to say *unique* evidence, not just evidence.
You think wrong. Now please tell us all what evidence you have for your belief that the earth is the center of the universe.
As usual, someone comes along, such as you have done and decides who will and who will not go to Hell...you have no authority, and no power...all your have is your own wishful thinking...which of course, counts for nothing at all...
...Evo-chimps are scorched for eternity in Hell.
Pass the barbecue sauce...
No comment. Just wanted to repeat the highlights and the essence of the post.
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.