Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False

Discovery Institute ^ | May 18, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False

Note: This post is the last in a series reviewing Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. Read Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here, Part 5 here, Part 6 here, and Part 7 here.

Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. It persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all.⁵⁰

Nevertheless, biology students might find Coyne’s book useful. Given accurate information and the freedom to exercise critical thinking, students could learn from Why Evolution Is True how Darwinists manipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a false theory that should have been discarded long ago.

Notes
⁵⁰ Paul A. Nelson, “The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning,” Biology and Philosophy 11 (October 1996): 493 - 517. Abstract available online (2009) here.

Jonathan Wells, “Darwin’s Straw God Argument,” Discovery Institute (December 2008). Available online (2009) here.

[GodGunsGuts]

This series is a MUST READ imho!

[Soothesayer]

There is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Just because liberals treat it like religious doctrine doesn’t mean the case is the same with everyone who accepts it.

[Tax Government]

The idea that people need to choose between God as creator and evolution is more than an annoyance, it is a major embarrassment.

[Matchett-PI]

Exactly. bttt

[sickoflibs]

Some day they will post an article called “Why Creationism is TRUE” to go with their millions of “Why Darwinism is False” postings. Dont hold your breath.

[GodGunsGuts]

Tell that to Richard Dawkins et al!!!

[Boxen]

For the most part, you are right. When GGG, or one of many other creationists on FR use the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist," it is often a blatant and erroneous attempt to frame the ToE as a religious movement.

However, it is also used in a more neutral sense to describe natural selection and to differentiate evolution as described by Darwin between other evolutionary theories such as modern synthesis and Lamarckism.¹

[Soothesayer]

Yes that’s why I put the word in quotes.

[GodGunsGuts]

I post articles the demonstrate Why Creation is TRUE all the time.

[mnehring]

Have you donated today?
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Evolutionists - whether materialistic or “theistic” - live in a group autistic self-contained fact space.

[Boxen]

Thanks, GGG. I've actually decided to go out and purchase Dr. Coyne's book.

[count-your-change]

Curious how quickly the “Belief in the Scriptures is embarrassing to Darwinist/Christians” argument arrived.

Seems to be the new hymn at The Temple of Darwinism.

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m glad to see that you have taken Dr. Wells’ advice :o)

“Nevertheless, biology students might find Coyne’s book useful. Given accurate information and the freedom to exercise critical thinking, students could learn from Why Evolution Is True how Darwinists manipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a false theory that should have been discarded long ago.”

[dmz]

I post articles the demonstrate opine Why Creation is TRUE all the time.

Fixed it for you.

[GodGunsGuts]

"I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

—Richard Dawkins

[Boxen]

If you haven’t already read it, I’ll let you know how it is. I may even write my own review.

[editor-surveyor]

"Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them."

The flim-flam man cometh.

[editor-surveyor]

Thank you Sicko-flibs for your usual malodorous smoke.