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
God.
Thanks.
At least two mistakes.
Piltdown was a hoax which was quickly figured out because it didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. They were correct. The final debunking in the early 1950s was just icing on the cake. And it was paleontologists and other evolutionary specialists who figured it out, not creationists.
Second, you should know that no theory is science is considered "proved." A theory is simply the best explanation we have for the data--and its an explanation that has withstood many tests. There is also the hypothesis, which is an idea which may or may be supported by data, and which has not yet withstood many tests. The theory of evolution passed that stage over a century ago.
Your attempt at humor is noted, but in making these two very noticeable mistakes you have only made yourself look silly.
I LOVE it when your type (you don't mind if I classify you as "your type," do you?) brings up Piltdown Man.
Piltdown Man is a triumph for TToE. As long as there as been science and money associated with it, there have been scam artists who want to take advantage of it for the bucks.
But science itself, in its operational methods, exposed Piltdown Man and showed how was a hoax.
Unbeknownst to many, there are passionate, knock-down, drag out fights within the TToE community about the meaning and proper placement of new AND OLD data as they continue to strive for the proper framework.
And singling out a single (or even several) hoaxes as undermining TToE is like singling out Cold Fusion as undermining Physics.
And now that Pluto isn't a planet, I guess it is time to toss Astronomy out the window.
Now, let us contrast with Religion. And I'll start with Scientology... (need I go on, or will you force me to bring in islam?)
Are Darwinism and Creationism mutually exclusive?
Why couldn't Darwinism be God's mechanism?
Am I overly poetic tonight?
But we can see how the CR/Iders evolve.
They used to bring up Piltdown Man and other Hoaxes as "proof" against TToE. When we turned the argument around and demonstrated how science polices its own (as opposed to religion and other philosophy), they eventually stopped using that so-called "argument." This is, of course, the self-preservation instinct in action.
Those who post hoax-based assertions either leave or cease to do so. Postinian Darwinism in action.
I haven't seen a "Piltdown Man" post in months. So I hope people will forgive my glee. It was like fresh blood to a vampire.
Are Darwinism and Creationism mutually exclusive?
"Creationism" as defined on these threads usually means literal interpretation of Genesis: 7 days means 168 hours as we know them now (a handful accept some vagueness about the "light" thing). Adam and Eve appeared {poof} fully formed with no background (nor clothes).
From that perspective, they are not only mutually exclusive, but TToE is Heresy.
Why couldn't Darwinism be God's mechanism?
Many of us Christians who understand TToE believe that TToE (the CR/IDers tend to substitute the term "Darwinism" for "Evolution" and TTYTT, it doesn't have a lot of meaning) is exactly that: a part of God's plan (look back a few posts for my rather elaborate description of the whole debate).
I read the original post. It may make the point, but it doesn't make sense.
Next time use an analogy with more argumentative elasticity! ;)
Whether or not the American public accepts evolution or not is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is fact. American lack of education, whether they be the product of govenment schools or not, doesn't change the facts of evolution.
I think you have a good handle on it. The theological position of mainstream Christianity and Judaism is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny. The only conflict that exists between science and faith is that which people manufacture. I personally know many people in the biological sciences who have no problem with the theory of evolution.
TToE = The Theory of Evolution?
CR/IDers = ?
TTYTT = ?
I'm just curious, and a bit lazy (as I do not feature reading through the entire thread), ... do Creationists deny Darwinism?
But we can see how the CR/Iders evolve.
They used to bring up Piltdown Man and other Hoaxes as "proof" against TToE. When we turned the argument around and demonstrated how science polices its own (as opposed to religion and other philosophy), they eventually stopped using that so-called "argument." This is, of course, the self-preservation instinct in action.
Those who post hoax-based assertions either leave or cease to do so. Postinian Darwinism in action.
I haven't seen a "Piltdown Man" post in months. So I hope people will forgive my glee. It was like fresh blood to a vampire.
There are always new converts who have not had some of the facts explained to them. They visit the creationist websites and think they are ready to slay the dragon of Darwinism.
They don't realize that, when it comes to the theory of evolution, the creationist websites are loaded with distortions, omissions, and outright lies.
Piltdown is a good example. The creationist websites will portray this as a fatal blow to the theory of evolution, instead of a deliberate hoax which fooled a few British scientists for a couple of decades--the hoaxer fed them what they wanted to find! That's always a winner.
Much like what the creationist websites feed the believers.
You, my FRiend, have made it into the inner circle that many FReepers aspire to.
You have made it onto my "Potential Tag Line" list.
Tell your family and make a bumper sticker.
Snack proud and strong!
'highly debatable' like what really caused the WTC towers to collapse.
Creationists are much like the WTC conspiracists in terms of their similar passionate achievement of total belief in something that did not happen.
An Aristotelian/Objectivist, OTOH, would have difficulty with accepting any concept beyond those which can be logically proven, eh?
But not in magnitude.
You are describing Galactic Linguists debating the prevalence of "jynnantonnyx."
Thank you very much.
"Here is a squirt gun with lemon juice. Aim for the dragon's Right eye! You will come home with the dragon's skin as a robe!"
LOL -- you have to admit they are cute when they are young.
Thank YOU -- it is a good one and will probably be up in the rotation pretty soon! :)
Thanks... I think.
I'm mainly here for the puns, with the occasional 5-yard penalty for piling on, or offsides, by one group or the other. :-)
Cheers!
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.