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
A most excellent idea..sometimes, just looking at their very own statements in their very own words, and repeated often enough, will make them look even worse as the statements get repeated...
In this case the self professed devout and dedicated 'believer' has serious faith issues. He's apparently unaware that if you make Pascal's wager you've already lost.
Ah, but I am sure that when Pascal wrote down beliefs, he was at least a bit more elegant...this latest post was plain downright nasty...
And I agree, when someone professes a devout faith and claims to be a dedicated believer, and then makes such a vile post, yes, they probably do have serious faith issues...thanks for bringing that to light...
Could you supply a bit more detail here please?
If you can not recognize that then you're a made man, as ignorance is bliss.
And show how this follows from the above.
Again, you misrepresent me. The evidence is all the same, as I have pointed out now for the third time.
"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.)
My position should be clear enough that even you can understand. There is no difference with any physical significance. It is interesting to watch you continue to misrepresent my position, since after saying it twice before, you still demand a 'physically significant' difference.
You are the one who claimed in post 643 that geocentrism "defies all scientific evidence",so the onus for providing "all scientific evidence" rests on you, not on me. My claim is that there is no physical difference between a heliocentric model and a geocentric one and you have provided none.
A difference of 'relative motion only' has 'no physical difference'. I'm sure that didn't get through again, but perhaps someone other than you can understand that.
All you can do is continue to misrepresent my (and Hoyle's) position, probably because you have no other argument. But I understand why. You have been taught *what* to think, not *how* to think.
It's my understanding that an insincere conditional profession of belief is unacceptable as a guarantee of eternal salvation. Accepting Pascal's wager as a basis for faith essentially acknowledges a fundamental flaw in faith. So it seems to me that Gargantua's judgment of others is not only very weak, but also a self judgment. His weak and conditional faith is unlikely a protection from that heavenly BBQ he apparently relishes will put others on the menu.
IOW, you have no evidence that the earth is the center of the universe.
Just follow the posted to links back.
Or trolls if that makes you happier,
Not to mention an apparent expectation of an afterlife that includes some sort of spiritual cannibalism.
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.
After becoming a believer in Christ and dumping evolution as a deception, I went on to graduate first in my college class with a perfect 4.0 GPA.
No brain in neutral there.
Besides, God didn't give us brains so we could invent fables and false teachings to foolishly deceive ourselves away from Him and His Word.
I don't quibble over which synonym best. :)
Did you know he wrote The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction?His buddy Behe said that if ID were to be considered scientific, astrology would be too. Here's Berlinski, trying to do so!
Michael Denton is no longer an anti-evolution activist.
I couldn't find anything about Richard Milton's religious views, so I'll allow that he may be an agnostic of some sort. He sounds like a wacked-out newager.
Here's an excerpt from Richard Dawkins' review of one of his books
All qualified physicists, biologists, cosmologists and geologists agree, on the basis of massive, mutually corroborating evidence, that the earths age is at least four billion years. Richard Milton thinks it is only a few thousand years old, on the authority of various Creation science sources including the notorious Henry Morris (Milton himself claims not to be religious, and he affects not to recognise the company he is keeping). The great Francis Crick (himself not averse to rocking boats) recently remarked that "anyone who believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old needs psychiatric help." Yes yes, maybe Crick and the rest of us are all wrong and Milton, an untrained amateur with a background as an engineer, will one day have the last laugh. Want a bet?(My bolding) OK, someone who claims to be an agnostic YEC-er. Riiight. I report, you decide.
Wow, I didn't think it was possible, but you seem to have found a couple of agnostic anti-evolution activists; one of whom wrote a book defending astrology, the other of whom appears to be a newage nutcase.
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.
Hopefully, Henry Morris will have used his hydraulic engineering skill to bujild an aqueduct. You do realize that Henry drove more people away from Christ than anyone else I'm aware of, with the possible exception of Jack Chick?
Pass the barbecue sauce...
ml1954: No comment. Just wanted to repeat the highlights and the essence of the post
Or as us classics types like to say
Res ipsa loquitur.
Might I point out, regarding the assertion that all great ideas are initially rejected by the establishment, that the greatest and most counter-intuitive idea in the history of human thought -- quantum theory -- went from nonexistence to complete acceptance in under a quarter of a century. At no time was it ridiculed by the establishment, even though nearly everyone hoped it was wrong.
Quite true. Relativity was also quickly accepted.
For years I've said that we're living in a new Renaissance.
I never would have guessed there would be so many Galileos around though. Milton, Dembski, Sheldrake, Behe, Targ and Puthoff, and on and on ...
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.