Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

** Reply Requested When Convenient **

I agree with Jon Wells comments.

Pattle.P.T.Pun, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology,
Wheaton College,
Wheaton, IL 60187
phone: 630-752-5303
fax: 630-752-5996
email: pattle.p.pun@wheaton.edu
http://www.wheaton.edu/Biology/faculty/ppp/index.html

>>> Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> 1/29/2007 2:31 PM >>>
Below is an essay by Jonathan Wells on Evolution Sunday. I post
without comment.

Keith

__________________________________

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19634

As Jonathan Dudley pointed out in his recent column (“Evolution
Sunday not so benign,” 1/24), hundreds of Christian churches across
America will celebrate Darwin’s theory on Feb. 11.

Why will they do this? A little background is helpful here.

Evolution can mean many things. Broadly speaking, it means simply
change over time, something no sane person doubts. In biblical
interpretation, it can mean that God created the world over a long
period of time rather than in six 24-hour days. In biology, it can
mean minor changes within existing species, which we see happening
before our eyes.

But Darwin’s theory claims much more * namely, that all living things
are descended from a common ancestor and that their present
differences are due to unguided natural processes such as random
variations and survival of the fittest. It is not evolution in
general, but Darwin’s particular theory (Darwinism) that Evolution
Sunday celebrates. That’s why it is timed to coincide with Charles
Darwin’s birthday.

The idea originated with University of Wisconsin evolutionary
biologist Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board adopted
the following policy in 2004: “Students are expected to analyze,
review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses
and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific
evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the
scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This
policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent
Design.”

Zimmerman called the policy a decision “to deliberately embrace
scientific ignorance.”

But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis
that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and
selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and
body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for
universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular
comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is
actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who
“embrace scientific ignorance.”

Not only did Zimmerman oppose analyzing Darwinism’s strengths and
weaknesses, but he also appealed to Christian churches for help. Why?

Polls have consistently shown that about 40 percent of Americans
believe God created the human beings in their present form a few
thousand years ago, while another 45 percent believe that humans
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms but that
God guided the process. Despite their differences, both of these
groups accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings
were designed and created in the image of God.

Darwinism denies this.

Darwin himself wrote that he could see “no more design in the
variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural
selection, than in the course which the winds blow.” Although he
could not “look at the universe as the result of blind chance,”
Darwin saw “no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of
any kind, in the details.” Thus, asserts Darwinist George Gaylord
Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that
did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

Less than 15 percent of Americans accept this view. Yet Darwinists
depend heavily on American taxpayers for their financial support.
Enlisting Christian clergy to defend “science” or “evolution” is a
tactic used to perpetuate that support.

For example, Eugenie Scott directs a militantly pro-Darwin
organization euphemistically named the National Center for Science
Education. As an acknowledged humanist, Scott rejects the Christian
worldview, yet she wrote in 2002: “I have found that the most
effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One
clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school
board meeting any day!”

To reach skeptics of Darwinism, Scott recommends sugarcoating
evolution as change over time. Only after she gets people nodding in
agreement to the obvious fact that “the present is different from the
past” does Scott introduce them to “The Big Idea” * namely, Darwin’s
theory. Organizers of Evolution Sunday use the same bait-and-switch.

The vast majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: It
doesn’t fit the scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central
tenet of Christianity. Instead of using Evolution Sunday to celebrate
Darwin, churches should use the day to reaffirm the creatorship of
God and the value of good science * which includes studying the
strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in religious studies from Yale and a
doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of
California, Berkeley. He is the author of “The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.”

______________________________________

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 18:13:08 2007