Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

An undergraduate minces no words in ripping apart Wells' ignorance.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19651

<quote>
 Letters to the editor

Creationist's column failed to back up outrageous, deceitful statements

To the Editor:

I was dismayed to read Jonathan Wells' column ("Churches shouldn't
fall for Darwinists' ploy," 1/29), which was yet another dishonest
criticism of the theory of evolution. Of course, given Dr. Wells'
affiliation with the Discovery Institute — the same think tank whose
purpose stated in a 1998 internal memo is "to defeat scientific
materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political
legacies" — the nature of his column is hardly a surprise.

Wells' arguments against evolution reveal either a profound ignorance
of Darwin's theory or a willful attempt to deceive the reader. For
instance, Wells claims that "experiments have consistently failed to
support the hypothesis that variations and selection … can produce new
species, organs and body plans." This argument is a fallacy. What
experiments? Conducted when? By whom? (Perhaps another fellow of the
esteemed Discovery Institute?) Wells is flat-out wrong: Scientists
have observed speciation events (e.g., the formation of "new species,"
to use Wells' terminology) in nearly every kingdom of life including
algae, plants, invertebrates and even mammals.

Indeed, the data supporting the theory of evolution are abundant,
multi-disciplinary and derived from numerous lines of evidence. The
fossil record, phylogenetics, and anatomical and molecular vestiges
are a few of many examples that are documented. A thorough examination
of these and other data can be found in Douglas Theobald's "29+
Evidences for Macroevolution." I challenge Wells to provide just a
modicum of support for his claims of the "inconsistencies" that
"plague" these findings. I have little doubt that his vaunted
criticisms will seem trivial when viewed in comparison of the
overwhelming body of support for Darwin's theory.

It is important to dispel a particularly deceitful argument proposed
by Wells: that the theory of evolution denies "a central tenet of
Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the
image of God." The theory of evolution makes absolutely no claims to
the veracity of the existence of God and the purported methods through
which He works. Thus it is imperative to emphasize that the theory of
evolution and a belief in creationism are not mutually exclusive, as
Wells would have us believe.

Ultimately, a scientific theory must be evaluated on its merits.
Specifically, what new predictions does a theory make, and from these
predictions, what are the outcomes? Wells' darling philosophy of
intelligent design unfortunately makes no new predictions, has led to
no new discoveries, and has yet to improve the life of a single
person. It inspires no new thought, and why should it? It is the
wanton resignation that the world is too complex to ever understand:
It is not a scientific theory, it is an intellectual retreat. By
contrast, the theory of evolution is among the most successful
theories in the history of science. It has offered a battery of novel
treatments and strategies to fight a host of diseases. It is the
central, overarching theme to all of biology. Most importantly, it
provides a tangible and testable explanation of where we came from as
a species and the courage, in its elegance, that we will know where to
go next.

Aaron Ring '08

</quote>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 31 10:34:44 2007