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
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.
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.