Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

& endorses a variety of creationism - the religious position that states that belief in God is incompatible with acceptance of evolution. Evolutionism & creationism agree in their primary implication & both are wrong.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: Pattle Pun ; American Scientific Affiliation ; Keith Miller
  Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:53 PM
  Subject: 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 20:25:08 2007