Advanced Search

What Darwinism Can't Do

The Edge of Evolution

By
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sat, Oct. 20 2007 10:19 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

The intelligent design (ID) movement has been accused of a lot of things over the years. Among the mildest of those accusations is that ID is just religion masquerading as science.

Enlarge this Image
Chuck Colson

Anyone who could seriously think that, cannot be paying attention. Intelligent design, as defined by the Discovery Institute, teaches simply “that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected [random] process such as natural selection.” That’s it. It does not attempt to define or describe that cause. Most scientists who subscribe to intelligent design do believe in some form of evolution. And some of them are not even believers in the Bible—they are secularists. They simply believe that Darwinism does not have all the answers, especially about how life originated. (Darwin himself never pretended certainty on that.)

Now, with the publication of Michael Behe’s second book, there is little excuse left for anyone to remain ignorant of what intelligent design actually is. Behe, you may remember, is the professor of biological science from Lehigh University who shook up the scientific world when he published Darwin’s Black Box over a decade ago. Now he has written The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. Behe leaves no doubt of his belief in natural selection. He even goes much further than many of us, including myself, by declaring his belief in a common ancestor.

In short, he is more than willing to acknowledge common ground with the evolutionists. All he is trying to show here is that there are certain things that Darwinism cannot answer. But even for that, he gets pilloried. The New York Times showed Behe’s book the ultimate disrespect by assigning someone who had publicly disagreed with and denounced him to review it: the vehement “anti-theist” Richard Dawkins, of all people. So much for the objectivity of the New York Times. That would be roughly the equivalent of the New York Times asking me to review one of Dawkins’s books. Fat chance.

Naturally, Dawkins accuses Behe of doing exactly what he does not do: Namely, he suggests that Behe states that where evolution reaches its limits, “God must step in to help.”

Behe does no such thing. What he does is provide a series of case studies, such as the malaria virus, the AIDS virus, and the human immune system, and shows what evolution did or did not do for them. For example, he shows that although human cells have evolved in many ways to combat malaria, many humans are still vulnerable to it—and in some cases, those human cells are even worse off than they were before. This means that evolution is not always as progressive as Darwinists would have us believe. As Behe puts it, what Dawkins and others have called an “arms race” is really much more like “trench warfare,” unleashing forces that can damage organisms as easily as it can help them. So evolution has its limits.

I suggest you ignore the forces that would stifle all dissent, and take a look at Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution. Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not, you do not need to follow the Darwinist line that everything you disagree with must be squashed. Dare to think for yourself. You just might learn what the Darwinists and the anti-theists do not want you to know.
_________________________________________________

From BreakPoint®, October 19, 2007, Copyright 2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
jammer
  • Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:55 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
A creator you must mean the alien race known as the Asgard.
The small body big head large almonds shaped eyesgray skin. There are pic's and video of there space ships many people around the world have seen them most give the same description
of what they look like. The whole GOD story is a cover up so we don't find out about them.
The Asgard don't want to change our natural development. We are like mice in a maze to them.
There studing of us will help them make better life else were..

At least there is some evidence
that aliens exist..

Where or what made this god you are talking about. Like responses below all you got is faith. Just like the men who strap bombs to there self and blow people away.
Or kill abortion doctors because god told them to.....
jammer
  • Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:18 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
HOw did all animals fit on the ark?
IT would take 6 inches of rain a minit 40 feet per hour to flood the earth.
Where did all the water go.
How did all the animals get from a montain in Turkey to where they live today? with out leaving bone behind. why no kangroos in turkey today?
Will E.
  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:06 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
Scientists do not want to "stifle dissent" when it comes to ID; indeed, the problem is that the questions and examples Behe uses have all been thoroughly debunked and/or answered. At the Dover trial Behe got pwned by saying he hadn't read the stacks of papers and books that solved his "problem" or irreducible complexity in the bacteria flagellum, and then admitted that astrology could be considered science.

As for concerns that science will be decided by courts and not evidence--ironic much? If ID'ers want their precious science taken seriously perhaps they should take all that money they devote to PR and do some research, experiments, go on a couple fossil digs, predict where the next bit of irreducible complexity will be found, etc., etc. Proponents of the big bang nor indeed of evolution never had to go to court to get their ideas taught; no, they slogged it out in papers and universities and laboratories throughout the world. They did the hard work and it paid off.

Go ahead: disprove evolution. Dismantle Darwin. The scientists would love it. Nothing is sacred in science, nothing is taboo--except utter BS.
Wiggy
  • Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:15 am
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
I think the righteous and religious among us should start attacking other sciences that ignore god as well. How about challenging the godless theories outside of biology. It's time to widen the front. Granted, the whole of modern biology depends on the theory of evolution, which says that all life forms evolved from a single common ancestor billions of years ago, without god's help. But what do other branches of science say about god?

What about cosmology? The science of cosmology says that the whole universe began 13.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang, that the stars, galaxies and planets formed through natural processes, that every element in everything we are made of was formed in stars, without any help at all from god. This is an outrage. It's time to put god back in the equations.

Don't you think it's about time to scale up the attack on Science? Rally the troops, it's time to go after that godless science of cosmology. For too long professors have brainwashed our kids with this atheism-based belief system. It should be easy to discredit! After all, did you know that there is much less evidence for the Big Bang theory than there is for the theory of evolution?
ifeelfine72
  • Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:05 pm
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
HAW549: By the way, helping the sick and poor is not socialism - its Christianity. If you want to legislate Christianity and make a real difference, don't make gay marriage illegal or force the teaching of ID, start by helping the poor or providing universal healthcare. Jesus was as liberal and as progressive as they come. If there is one common thread in the Bible, its help the poor and the least amonst us. I don't believe that the Discovery Institute counts as the least amonst us, nor do Bush's friends who get huge tax cuts.
ifeelfine72
  • Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:59 pm
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
HAWK49: It seems as though there are a lot of folks whose gifted ministries are preaching about ID and the abomination of homosexuality - its too bad more folks gifts didn't revolve around helping the poor and sick. I know lots of Christians (like myself) who see evolution (no one of any educational standing - at least credible educational standing - calls it Darwinism) and can't help but see the beauty of God in all of it. I think evolution happened exactly the way scientists are finding it happened and yet I know that God's hand was in all of it. I would urge you to stop wasting time on something as ridiculous as this and appreciate God's creation for what it is.

Personally, to me, it's starting to look like the Christian Post is really the Christian Right Wing Post - and if you don't have right wing, conservative political leanings then you can't be a true Christian and that is a shame because Jesus' ideas were as radical and progressive as you can possibly get.
HAWK49
  • Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:21 am
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
ifeelfine72:
I do believe God has commanded us to both help the least among us (that does not mean government socialism) and to defend the faith against false philosophies and false teachings that are alluring the elect and causing many to turn against God. George Barna has demonstrated very well how nominal Christians have bought the lies of secular humanism and how many children of Christian homes, when they leave the home also leave the church. Also reflect upon the body and we all are gifted for different ministries. Some may be to study and teach about God's general revelations. Take a look at the powerpoint presentation on www.nehemiahinstitute.com and see how effective Christian kids (90% of them) have bought into the secualr humanist lies. Their Christian worldview is nonexistent. I am leaving in a few minutes on a trip so I will not be around to respond. I urge you to refect on God's word regarding what I mentioned and seek out The Truth Project in your area to learn more of God's total design for His creation.
ifeelfine72
  • Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:29 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
HidingBehingNickname: I've never read his book nor do I care to. But I didnt make that claim, nor did I offer an opinion on the review. My point was on the whole idea of even talking about this in the first place. Why as Christians should we care about this? If you spent as much time helping the least amongst us (the poor, sick, imprisoned, maligned, etc) as you do wasting time talking about this stuff then the world would be a much better place. Cleary the entire point of the Bible is wasted on you.
steveh20
  • Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:33 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Thanks HBN for your feedback. I've gone back and read my original comment, I can't find any mention of the book in it or any claim to have read it, so I'm not certain where you get the idea from that I claimed to have read it? Can you let me know why you think this, thanks.
HAWK49
  • Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:19 am
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
For the IDers, realize the devious games the devil's religion of humanism (ye shall be as gods) plays. The court ruling evolutionists use to say irreducible complexity and Intelligent Design was refuted is a hoax. The court case is real, the decision was based on misrepresentation by an ACLU evolutionist.
In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 27, 2005

Harrisburg, PA -- The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opened in federal court yesterday with the ACLU calling its first expert witness in an effort to tell the court how it should define science. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy that requires students to listen to a three-paragraph statement about the theory of intelligent design.

The ACLU’s first expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the scientific theory of intelligent design is untestable and therefore unscientific. Later he contradicted himself by proceeding to discuss how he has made various arguments in scientific forums testing design theory.

“Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design was simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.

“Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the Court rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific theories—matters which should be left to scientific experts and not be decided by courts,” added Luskin.

Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision
Traipsing into Evolution is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here