Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

At 06:12 PM 1/29/2007, Pattle Pun wrote:
>** Reply Requested When Convenient **
>
>I agree with Jon Wells comments.

@ Wells is talking about Darwinism, and that is Evolutionism---the
philosophical position that states evolutionary theory is
incompatible with belief in God
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Youth%20Page/FishWars3.html

~ Janice ... Pope John Paul: "There are several theories of evolution..."

> >>> 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.

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 18:53:38 2007