Evolution for the masses

Hey! This is a fun article. Should give the Doctors
more ammunition for their ad hominem attacks. I guess
that's all they have since they lack scientific
evidence yet continue to call the disproven
macroevolution hypothesis 'science'.

Gosh, maybe the Doctors don't know squat about what the
scientific method is. Or maybe they are ignorant. Or
maybe they are "fanatically blinded by their
philosophical and/or religious beliefs", whatever they
are. The mind reels at the possibilities!   

---

Evolution for the masses

Jonathan Wells
The Washington Times
September 23, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------

America is the most scientifically advanced nation on
Earth, yet a majority of its citizens reject Charles
Darwin¹s theory of evolution. Gallup polls have shown
that about 45 percent of Americans believe God created
living things in their present form a few thousand
years ago; about 40 percent believe that things evolved
over a long time with God¹s guidance; while only a
little more than 10 percent accept Darwin¹s theory that
things evolved through unguided natural selection and
random variations.

Darwinists, of course, deplore this situation. To
correct it, they will broadcast an eight-hour
miniseries on public television from Sept. 24-27. The
miniseries is entitled ³Evolution,² and its guiding
vision is to convey ³the importance of evolution² to
the American people.

According to its producers, the miniseries ³presents
facts and the accumulated results of scientific
inquiry; which means understanding the underlying
evidence behind claims of fact and proposed theories,
and reporting on those areas where the science is
sound. In keeping with solid science journalism we
examine empirically testable explanations for Œwhat
happened,¹ but don¹t speak to the ultimate cause of
Œwho done it¹--the religious realm.²

Yet the ³underlying evidence² turns out to be
surprisingly thin. Evolution has lots of interesting
stories about scientists studying minor changes within
existing species, but domestic breeders have been
observing those for centuries. What made Darwin¹s
theory revolutionary was his claim that similar changes
could produce new species and new kinds of organisms.
Viewers will not see any evidence for this in
³Evolution.²

In fact, the miniseries distorts scientific evidence to
make it look like support for Darwin¹s theory. A
physician claims he sees HIV evolving into new species
in a matter of hours Ð yet the claim is false. We are
told that apelike creatures that lived a million years
ago were our ancestors Ð yet Henry Gee, chief science
writer for Nature, wrote in 1999 that this ³is not a
scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an
assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime
story.² We are shown a mutant fruit fly with an extra
pair of wings that is supposed to be evidence for the
role of genes in evolution Ð yet (as the discerning
viewer will see) the extra wings are immobile. The fly
is actually a deformed cripple, an evolutionary dead
end. Not only does ³Evolution² fail to present solid
evidence for Darwin¹s theory, but it also presents
uncritically some of the theory¹s more disreputable
manifestations. Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey
Miller tells us that cultural achievements such as
Handel¹s ³Messiah² are products of our ancestors¹
sexual urges Ð yet even most Darwinists consider this
pseudoscience. American Museum of Natural History
anthropologist Ian Tattersall, for one, has criticized
Mr. Miller¹s speculations for being ³a product of the
storyteller¹s art, not of science.²

In place of evidence and sound science, ³Evolution²
relies on a parade of carefully chosen experts who
assure us Darwin was right and God had nothing to do
with it.

In fact, ³Evolution² has quite a lot to say about God
and religion. From start to finish, its message is that
only ignorant biblical fundamentalists criticize
Darwinian evolution. Yet most of Darwin¹s critics in
the 19th century were other scientists, and the number
of modern scientists who criticize Darwinism is
growing. Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, for
example, has documented the ³failure of Darwin¹s theory
on the molecular level.²

There are also many religious people who doubt
Darwinism even though they are not biblical
fundamentalists. Renowned religion scholar Huston Smith
has written that Darwinism is ³supported more by
atheistic philosophical assumptions than by scientific
evidence² and blames it for eroding the ³faith in
transcendence² that is basic to all the world¹s
religions.

Instead of presenting us with a balanced picture of its
controversial subject, ³Evolution² completely ignores
critics such as Messrs. Smith, Behe, Tattersall and
Gee. It distorts the evidence for Darwin¹s theory, it
glorifies unsound science, and it promotes a biased
view of ³the religious realm.² Instead of being an
educational documentary, it is a work of pro-Darwin
propaganda that is out of place on public television.

If ³Evolution² fails to persuade the masses that
Darwinism is true, perhaps it¹s because Americans have
more sense than Darwinists think they have.

--

Jonathan Wells has a Berkeley Ph.D. in biology.