Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: ml1954

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...

Fine idea..


801 posted on 09/29/2006 4:44:07 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

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.


802 posted on 09/29/2006 4:59:33 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

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...


803 posted on 09/29/2006 5:20:13 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate; freedumb2003
To say TOE and abiogenesis are not linked is like saying Math and Calculus have nothing to do with each other. The same forces are in play with both.

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.

804 posted on 09/29/2006 5:30:31 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

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.


805 posted on 09/29/2006 5:38:29 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom; Gargantua

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.


806 posted on 09/29/2006 5:46:08 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

IOW, you have no evidence that the earth is the center of the universe.


807 posted on 09/29/2006 5:48:48 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Just follow the posted to links back.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709358/posts?page=611#611


808 posted on 09/29/2006 6:00:45 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You then believe your source as to what defines the truth and I'll believe mine and ultimately we will find out who was deceived.
809 posted on 09/29/2006 6:01:23 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
D@mn! What a bunch of retards.

Or trolls if that makes you happier,

810 posted on 09/29/2006 6:01:55 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Not to mention an apparent expectation of an afterlife that includes some sort of spiritual cannibalism.


811 posted on 09/29/2006 6:04:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons; presently no screen name
"Great testimony. It's only AFTER finding The Truth, can one see how they were deceived."

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.

Thank you.
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.

812 posted on 09/29/2006 6:10:08 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

I don't quibble over which synonym best. :)


813 posted on 09/29/2006 6:11:19 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Berlinski claims to be a Jewish agnostic. Assuming he's telling the truth, he'd be the first non-theist anti-evolution activist I ever heard of.

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 earth’s 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.

814 posted on 09/29/2006 6:38:20 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
It's my understanding that an insincere conditional profession of belief is unacceptable as a guarantee of eternal salvation.


The Agnostic's Prayer
(Roger Zelazny, Creatures of Light and Darkness, © 1969)

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.

815 posted on 09/29/2006 6:46:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua; Al Simmons
One day soon some of us will be sipping from the River of Life in Heaven while the rest of these Evo-chimps are scorched for eternity in Hell.

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?

816 posted on 09/29/2006 6:49:47 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; Gargantua
Gargantua : ...Evo-chimps are scorched for eternity in Hell.

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.

817 posted on 09/29/2006 6:54:04 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
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.

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.

818 posted on 09/29/2006 6:57:06 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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 ...


819 posted on 09/29/2006 7:03:39 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
can't really understand your point

I asked a very simple question. You opted to copout, yet you warn about using our God-given brain and 'brain in neutral'.
820 posted on 09/29/2006 8:05:06 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Another great testimony. Good post. Thanks!


821 posted on 09/29/2006 8:09:46 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

When you claim that the theory of evolution is "Godless", it is clear that your "source as to what defines truth" is not reality.


822 posted on 09/29/2006 8:19:50 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
You do realize that Henry drove more people away from Christ

You give people way too much power. NO ONE can drive anyone from Christ but themselves with their free will.
823 posted on 09/29/2006 8:32:26 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
When you claim that the theory of evolution is "Godless", it is clear that your "source as to what defines truth" is not reality.

"Not reality"? How would you know?

Keep following this nonsense and see just where you end up.

I thank God He rescued me from the deception you consider reality.
I'm never going back.

824 posted on 09/29/2006 8:38:08 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
The Theory of Evolution does not take any position on the existence of God

Exactly. It totally dismisses Our Supernatural God. It dismisses God's Word about His own Creations. Not a good idea, Darwin's brain must have been in neutral.
825 posted on 09/29/2006 8:44:27 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
How would you know?

You have asserted that the theory of evolution is "Godless". You have offered no evidence to show that this claim is true, and the theory itself does not address the existence of any gods at all. Why should your claim be accepted as valid?

I thank God He rescued me from the deception you consider reality.

Please demonstrate that what I consider reality is "deception".
826 posted on 09/29/2006 8:56:01 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: All
It totally dismisses Our Supernatural God.

It is curious that creationists continue to repeat this claim, when in fact it is completely false. I am not certian if the creationists who repeat this false claim are merely dishonest, or if they suffer from a mental disorder that renders them incapable of accepting that they may possibly incorrect on any subject.
827 posted on 09/29/2006 8:58:11 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Why should your claim be accepted as valid?

Because I say so.

What's wrong with you?

828 posted on 09/29/2006 9:00:58 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Please demonstrate that what I consider reality is "deception".

When I was in your position NOTHING could demonstrate the truth to me.

I'm not going to waste my time.

I took a personal transformation by Christ to open my eyes to lies of evolution and convince me of the truth of God's Word.

829 posted on 09/29/2006 9:05:08 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Because I say so.

That is not a valid, logical argument. Asserting that you have made a statement does not demonstrate that the statement is correct.
830 posted on 09/29/2006 9:06:49 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
When I was in your position NOTHING could demonstrate the truth to me.

You have not demonstrated that you have ever actually been "in the same position" as I am in now. Why should your claim be believed? Why should I not, instead, conclude that you are fabricating your accounts?

I'm not going to waste my time.

In other words, you are making claims that you cannot demonstrate to be factual. Why do you take the time to post? Adamantly refusing to support an unsupported assertion can actually make your argument appear weaker than not making any statement at all.
831 posted on 09/29/2006 9:09:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Exactly. It totally dismisses Our Supernatural God. It dismisses God's Word about His own Creations. Not a good idea, Darwin's brain must have been in neutral.

It's frightening to think of where Darwin must be now, consider all the people he's deceived.

Evolution's first priority is to cancel God out of the equation of man's origins. Those who deny this clearly had no concept of God to begin with. Nor can they recognize the truth no matter how you present it to them.

They need to be converted spiritually.

832 posted on 09/29/2006 9:12:19 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Evolution's first priority is to cancel God out of the equation of man's origins.

Please demonstrate that this is a motive of the theory.
833 posted on 09/29/2006 9:14:37 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Right. It's a personal transformation and NO ONE can take that from you! Some will try to make 'your personal' experience invalid. If THEY don't understand it, it can't be true.

Good Night!


834 posted on 09/29/2006 9:15:23 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You have not demonstrated that you have ever actually been "in the same position" as I am in now. Why should your claim be believed? Why should I not, instead, conclude that you are fabricating your accounts?

I don't care if you believe me or not.

You're arguments are demonstrating what a waste of time it is to engage in dialogue with evolutionists. They doubt God so no surprise they should doubt everyone else.

835 posted on 09/29/2006 9:23:31 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Totally agree.


836 posted on 09/29/2006 9:26:19 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
You're arguments are demonstrating what a waste of time it is to engage in dialogue with evolutionists.

Is this because they do not believe you inerrant, and instead ask that you support your unsubstantiated assertions with evidence when you are unwilling or unable to do so?

They doubt God so no surprise they should doubt everyone else.

Your statement is demonstratably false, thus any argument that you use with this as a premise is faulty.
837 posted on 09/29/2006 9:27:58 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
And aliens built the pyramids.

Prove otherwise.

838 posted on 09/29/2006 11:15:14 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"You give people way too much power. NO ONE can drive anyone from Christ but themselves with their free will."

Well then, I guess Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Jim Bakker et. al. labor in vain selling their snake oil religion, don't they?

839 posted on 09/29/2006 11:46:04 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Finding God does not excuse you from using the analytical part of your brain... that He gave you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"I am not certian if the creationists who repeat this false claim are merely dishonest, or if they suffer from a mental disorder that renders them incapable of accepting that they may possibly incorrect on any subject."

I don't know if your statement applies to anyone around here, but you have just summed up my ex in a nutshell...

840 posted on 09/29/2006 11:48:00 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Finding God does not excuse you from using the analytical part of your brain... that He gave you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
What if the Muslims are correct?

Then there are a LOT of other religions also correct that rely on the "Doing more GOOD than EVIL" solution to entering Paradise. Christianity is the ONLY one that says you CAN'T be 'good' enough - never - ever - therefore you need a SAVIOR.

841 posted on 09/30/2006 5:03:40 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

;^)


Sounds like a good start!


842 posted on 09/30/2006 5:05:28 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
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?

You've got data, of course.

843 posted on 09/30/2006 5:06:14 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
NO ONE can drive anyone from Christ but themselves with their free will.

HA!

Little do YOU know!!

Why, I, myself, have been accused of doing that very thing here in FR!

844 posted on 09/30/2006 5:08:25 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

HE's used talking donkeys before! ;^)


845 posted on 09/30/2006 5:10:14 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 839 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Just follow the posted to links back.

I must be a dolt. Following the links I can not dig this part out.

Imagine my surprise to read his actual words and find that he says information theory proves Darwinian evolution.

846 posted on 09/30/2006 5:15:52 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Berlinski claims to be a Jewish agnostic. Assuming he's telling the truth, he'd be the first non-theist anti-evolution activist I ever heard of.

And why is it a big deal either way ? Why SHOULD being an atheist or an agnostic DE-FACTO give your scientific view more credence than Christians like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Werner Von Braun or Theists like Albert Einstein ?

why should the religious beliefs of agnostic turned Christian like Francis Collins, who helped map the human DNA have ANY BEARING whatsoever on the SPECIFIC issue of whether Random mutation plus natural selection can produce HUMAN LIFE ? The answer is it DOES NOT.

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.

LOADED WORDS --- newage nutcase. et. al. Simply because you disagree with their views.

let's take Michael Behe's statement on astrology IN CONTEXT, instead of mis-understanding him. You complain a lot about quote mining out of context. Well, physician, heal thyself. You immediately pounce on Behe and then say to yourselves : "Now we have ID people who want to teach something they themselves admit is on the same scientific level as astrology."

If you heard what he said at the time, weren’t you surprised? I know I was. Funny thing is, if you go to the actual transcript (use your Find feature to look for "astrology" in looking at the Dover transcripts, and then back up a few sentences to get the context), you’ll see that the typical description is very misleading indeed. Behe was explaining why he thought ID was a scientific theory (and hence, why it could be taught in a public school while not violating the separation of church and state). To put it very loosely, Behe said that a scientific theory explains numerous observations about the natural world by reference to some unifying principle, and that this indeed is what ID does in biology. Naturally Behe did not add the caveat, "To qualify as ‘scientific,’ a conjecture must first command the assent of at least 95% of the relevant scientists."

Of course the lawyer pounced and asked Behe if astrology would count as a scientific theory under this definition, to which Behe replied "yes." Now, Behe isn’t an idiot, at least when it comes to publicity ( anyone who attended his public debates knows that he comports himself logically and scientifically). He knew full well why that question was being asked, and he knew his admission would be splashed all over the newspapers. So if he were truly intellectually dishonest, why wouldn’t he dodge the question? Why wouldn’t he act, say, Kerry did during their debates?

But when men like Richard Dawkins says things like :

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

It's OK and he isn't a nutcase ( not even if he insults the majority of Americans with that statement ).
847 posted on 09/30/2006 7:26:00 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I can't help you. I gave you the link. The statement is even in bold. If you want to know more you will have to track down Yockey's paper in Computers & Chemistry.


848 posted on 09/30/2006 7:27:55 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Behe said that a scientific theory explains numerous observations about the natural world by reference to some unifying principle, and that this indeed is what ID does in biology.

Garbage. You can make any number of "Explanatory" statements, but they are not scientific unless they have implications that can be tested empirically. Any hypothesis or conjecture must suggest research. Field research, laboratory research, something concrete.

ID has been sitting on its ass since 1802 without saying anything that has empirical implications. Even the Discovery Institute admits that they have been pushing changes to curriculum before having an actual research program.

849 posted on 09/30/2006 7:34:36 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Did you know he wrote The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction

Yes I know he did. But ask yourself WHY HE DID IT ?

SEE HERE : http://www.harcourtbooks.com/authorinterviews/bookinterview_Berlinski.asp

EXCERPT OF THE INTERVIEW:

Q: What was your motivation and inspiration for writing a book about astrology and its influence on modern science?

A: I was intrigued by the idea of a failed science, the more so since the science in question has a very long, very curious history. Astrology has been present in Western culture from its very beginning in the Sumerian era. With the advent of mathematical physics in the 17th century, astrology comes to an end both as an intellectual and as a social force. And yet the science that replaced astrology—Newton's science of mechanics—and astrology itself, although differing very considerably in intellectual power, nonetheless share a strong family resemblance—the same strong bones, wide-set eyes, and slightly goofy expression. What I found most interesting about astrology as a failed science is that in some sense it lives on despite its official and widely-noted death rattle. Astrological forms of thought are present in biology, a most astrological endeavor, and even in contemporary mathematical physics itself. Astrology has always been a magical discipline inasmuch as it has always been committed to some form of action at a distance, the very mark of magical thinking. Magical thinking has not disappeared from modern science: It has simply been disguised by a brilliantly effective mathematical screen. Where the screen is thinnest, as in molecular biology, the magic is still very notable.

Beyond this, the problems that the astrologers faced had the quality of great depth—action at a distance, free will, causes that incline but do not compel; and the men and women struggling to meet these problems evoke a sense of shared sympathy—in me, at least.

CONTEXT MEANS A LOT DOESN'T IT ?
850 posted on 09/30/2006 7:36:42 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,151-1,195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson