I am still thinking about that comment of yours, but it makes about as much sense to me as this photo will to you....
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
Toss and turn, your one-way ticket is reserved.
Bring some SPF 80, n'kay?
;-/
I am still thinking about that comment of yours, but it makes about as much sense to me as this photo will to you....
You have defined yourself as the gatekeeper. You have asserted your authority to judge the rest of us mortals.
;-/
No, no, no. Its NOT him.
My ex has that job all to herself....
See, what I've learned in life is this: people who set themselves up to judge who will 'go to hell' and who will 'go to heaven' are really just trying to divert attention from their own unacknowledged problems....
like, for example, psychotic violence, lying, perjury.....
oh NO - I'm not talking about HIM. I'm still talking about HER.
All clear now?
I laugh at your of my presumption of my destiny, as does your God at your assumption of the fate of others. Beware your own fate.
Placemarker
Maybe she was just trying to get thru to you. Think?
"Fear God and do your own part."
It seems to me that those who freely presume to judge the faith (and fate) of others are not doing enough of the former nor of the latter.....
translation: flapping your gums is cheap - LIVE your faith, and you will attract others to it - FLAP, and you will incur derision....
Geee, you're a real comic....
I dunno.....I kinda thought that she was just trying to get arrested by the MPs so that she could never make full colonel....both of which she succeeded in doing....(but she's still a perfect Christian....)
Whatever 'Beat' you're into but it's not 'common' sense.
EXCELLENT!!!
Brownie points if you did not have to do any research to come up with that response!
I actually just finished watching "Jugatsu" and have to say that its one of the more confusing Kitano films....certainly the character he plays in it is certifiable (as you could probably conclude from studying that photo...)
Protect us from ghosties and goblins and long-leggedy beasties, and things that go thump in the night.
Very good. Now just 40-some more posts and we can retire...
It'll have to be without me.
Thank you for your contribution.
Go to bed. It's unlikely it's going to happen tonight.
Its only 10:46 PM here on the left coast, though....
In God's eyes all Christians are perfect thru Christ. However, Christians also know that they are just as sinful as non-Christians. Like I said, maybe she was trying to get the point across but evidently it fell on deaf ears. That's really too bad.
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.