The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Introduction

| 84 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

Jonathan Wells (2006) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC.Amazon

Read the entire series.

Jonathan Wells is one of the most notorious activists of the political ad campaign known as “intelligent design”. He is most well known for his attacks on modern biology, specifically his 2000 book, Icons of Evolution, which was panned by the scientific community for its fraudulent presentation of modern biology.

Does Jonathan Wells, aiming once again at the popular market, restore his scientific and academic reputation with his latest book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, or is it just old trash in a new bag? To find out, you will need to read our multi-part review, which begins tomorrow.

One thing is for sure, Jonathan Wells is too modest. His recently published, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, is not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally.

Jonathan Wells has a Masters of Religious Education from Unification Theological Seminary, a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California: Berkeley. His scientific output is nearly non-existent, consisting of a couple co-authored papers from his days as graduate student and postdoc. However, he was highly motivated to get advanced degrees, as he wrote in an article about his education:

[Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. …

As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. …

When I finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the theological basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism.

But Darwinism was clearly winning the ideological battle in the universities, the public schools, and the mass media, largely because it claimed to be supported by scientific evidence. I knew enough about biology to know that this claim was quite shaky, but few scientists were willing to challenge it. Those who did were often lumped together with young-earth biblical fundamentalists and thereby discredited in the eyes of most scholars.

I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program, this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. …

Did You Know?

  • Hundreds of scientific articles are published every month on evolution.
  • There is no scientific controversy over evolution.
  • The scientific community considers “intelligent design” to be unscientific.

Furthermore, Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, a public policy think tank located in Seattle, Washington. The Discovery Institute is the epicenter of “intelligent design” activism, which took a major blow when Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District effectively declared it religiously motivated pseudoscience, unfit for public schools. Now in this first year after Dover, the “intelligent design” activists have been busy picking up the pieces, trying to hide their defeat in Dover behind a “new” marketing campaign. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, for which the Discovery Institute is holding a party, is part of this marketing campaign, and because of all this, one might reasonably argue that, in addition to the author and the publisher, the Discovery Institute bears responsibility for the poor quality of this book.

Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to “intelligent design”. Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy. In fact there is not a single, clear statement of what was and wasn’t designed. So while the title is modest in some respects, it’s also incorrect in one more: there’s no guide to “intelligent design” in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Ah, well. Maybe next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after … pigs fly.

That is it for this brief introduction. Be back tomorrow for the first installment of our mutli-part review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, “Why Should Words Have Meanings? (Chapter 1)” by Burt Humburg.

2 TrackBacks

Check it out here. I mentioned previously that I'll be reviewing another chapter of the book in the future, and PZ has a write-up of the chapter on developmental biology here (that will be posted to Panda's Thumb in the... Read More

Jonathan Wells (2006) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC.Amazon Synopsis: One thing is for sure, Jonathan Wells is too modest. His recently published, The Politically Incorrect ... Read More

84 Comments

Does Jonathan Wells, aiming once again at the popular market, restore his scientific and academic reputation with his latest book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, or is it just old trash in a new bag? To find out, you will need to read our multi-part review, which begins tomorrow.

For some reason I think I can guess, but I look forward to the review nonetheless.

Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to “intelligent design”. Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy. In fact there is not a single, clear statement of what was and wasn’t designed.

How many IDers do you think will return the book once they learn this? How many IDers do you think will even notice this? Do you think even one will be struck by the paucity of positive evidence?

Of course not, since their conclusions are already assumed.

PZ does an excellent job of analyzing just one bit of the rampant quote mining littering this trash (is that redundant?) over on pharyngula as well, so between the two tag teams, this book will be nothing more than confetti in about a week I’d guess.

what’s sad is that this trash hits the shelves right on the heels of Coulter’s.

to turn Mummert’s infamous phrase on it’s head:

“Help, we’re being attacked by the lying, ignorant, irrational part of society”

Everyone who thinks Wells will restore his “scientific and academic reputation” stand on your head.…

Wells pretty much admits he got his biology degree so that he could claim to be a scientist, which he needed to do in order to claim there’s a scientific controversy. His efforts are directed toward those who don’t know what science is, with the appearance of appropriate authority, because that’s the majority of people, and all he needs is a large enough majority for his political goals to be reached.

To the degree those goals are reached, the number of people who know what science is shrinks, and Wells’ success rate rises.

I confidently predict that the upcoming critique of the Guide will focus on the science, and be presented to a community that knows and cares about science, and thus doubly miss the point. I predict that we will read NO assessments of how successfully the Guide persuades those who don’t know any better, and thus how well Wells succeeds in his actual purpose. This is, as the title at least *tries* to get through to us, a political book written for political purposes. Any valid critique examines the book’s political success. The science is deliberate doubletalk not meant to be scientific, but to further the political agenda.

Flint wrote:

This is, as the title at least *tries* to get through to us, a political book written for political purposes. Any valid critique examines the book’s political success. The science is deliberate doubletalk not meant to be scientific, but to further the political agenda.

But is it? Politically, ID is dead in the water; even Rick Santorum is running away from it. I’m inclined to think its a cynical attempt to wring money from the gullible, much like Coulter’s book.

Aagcobb:

Yes, I think it is political. When has defeat (political, legal, or scientific) even slowed down creationist zeal? And indirectly but just as important, IF there is money to be made selling this book, it’s made selling the book to potential votes. Corollary: IF the book bombs in the market, politics might be turning against creationism. But I note Coulter’s book has sold very very well. Where there is widespread public acceptance or approval, the political base is there. It’s just a matter of how to organize and mobilize it.

”…fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to “intelligent design”.”

This should be no surprise since that’s all that ID is in the first place. It asserts nothing in support of its own hypothesis and pretends that, by demonstrating that evolutionary theory doesn’t explain every single observed biological phenomenon, that constitutes sound reasoning for rejecting it in its entirety and conclusive proof for ID.

While we, the rational, inquiring, not-willing-to-take-the-easy-way-out people might be able to see through the BS, I fear that many (see majority of US population) don’t, can’t, or are unwilling to even consider the problem objectively in the first place.

Flint wrote

I confidently predict that the upcoming critique of the Guide will focus on the science, and be presented to a community that knows and cares about science, and thus doubly miss the point. I predict that we will read NO assessments of how successfully the Guide persuades those who don’t know any better, and thus how well Wells succeeds in his actual purpose. This is, as the title at least *tries* to get through to us, a political book written for political purposes. Any valid critique examines the book’s political success. The science is deliberate doubletalk not meant to be scientific, but to further the political agenda.

I invite – nay, I urge Flint to write that review and submit it for consideration as a guest post on PT and/or to the SecWeb.

RBH

“Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to “intelligent design”. Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy.”

I think that it is conceivable for the design of the desiging agent to be unable to conceive of the methods and presence of the designing agent. Consider a robot. Without eyes or sensors can it detect it’s maker? To assume that all that we can see is really all there is, is, although a reasonable position, not necessarily the truth.

That is not to say we should believe in the matrix http://www.newscientistspace.com/ch[…]535.900.html , but rather that we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think that’s the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a reasonable one.

I should be “open to concepts which are inconceivable”?

I’ll get right on it, as soon as I eat this food that is impossible to swallow, draw a five-sided square, and count to the integer that is so large that 1 cannot be added to it.

>…we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think >that’s the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a >reasonable one.

That is a reasonable position and reasonable people hold it. But it is not the ID position at all. The ID position is that you should ONLY be open to their position (in spite of the evidence not supporting it) and that you should NOT be open to a position that IS supported by the evidence.

I think it would be neat if some PTer would attend the Discovery Institute’s party for Wells’ book and report back, ideally with pictures and interviews. I think Prof. Steve Steve is most qualified for this task, but undoubtedly there are others capable of doing an adequate job. The air fare would be a little steep for me, so I can’t make it.

It’s also somewhat curious exactly how Wing|ess draws that relatively innocuous, if somewhat wishy-washy, principle of epistemic humility from anything the IDers have ever said.

To return the subject to Wells’s PIGDID: could you please explain how you move from Wells lying about the data and what scientists say about it to the conclusion that his point is “we ought to be more open-minded”?

RBH:

Not such an easy analysis, of course. By most measures, Coulter’s book was an immense political success - it reached bestsellerhood, it elicited commentary in broadcast and print media, it was debated (and thus publicized) intensely on the internet, in a great many venues. I don’t know if it was pimped from any pulpits, but I sure wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know how to tell if it changed any minds, but it probably ratified the suspicions of anyone with tendencies in that direction.

Whether Wells can reach the same levels of sales and publicity is doubtful. And even these measures are indirect, showing the size of the target audience without any clear indication that it increased that size. Nonetheless, it occupies somewhat different political territory. Coulter is a rightwing editorialist, clearly pushing a political agenda. Wells is trying to push the same political agenda but far less honestly - by pretending to be an objective scientist assessing the Scientific Truth. So I expect Wells can accomplish more despite lower sales - he’s much harder for the ignoranti to dismiss. Here is a “real scientist” showing that my opinion was right all along!

I’ll be most interested to read the reviews of the book, to see if some of them accept Wells’ science at face value. But hopefully we’re all aware that even the “great books of history” are problematical in terms of influence. With well over a century of hindsight, did Uncle Tom’s Cabin influence any elections, prewar federal policies, war battles, reconstruction policies, etc? Can the decline in public morals be attributed to the automobile electric starter? Hell, we can’t even agree whether morals have declined!

Kennedy made a 30 minute version of Sunday’s “documentary” and broadcast it on his radio show this morning. Collins and Behe are both featured – Collins at length – at about 20 minutes in (was still in bed so wasn’t keeping close track) on the usual ID talking point about the cell containing a whole library of information which is far too complex to have evolved naturally. Ann Coulter is also featured and even quotes the word “phyla” - I wonder if she knows what it means?

The audio link is at the top of this page.

http://www.truthsthattransform.org/

I had stopped by Barnes and noble yesterday and read the first section of chapter 1 and then started reading the second section and realized that he had set up a strawman in the very first chapter of his book not even 6 paragraphs in. He went from supporting evolution to saying however he doesn’t support Darwinism and proceeded to label what darwinism is from there on and trying to debunk it. I didn’t spend much time reading it but once I saw that I just put the book back and decided that what we really need to do is start publishing small rebuttal papers for each book or for common criticisms of TOE (like 2nd law etc) and going to libraries and book stores and placing these papers inside the books.

“I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop.”

Umm, how did that strategy work out? EvoDevo is currently about the hottest area of biology, and the insights from development into how evolution works are nothing short of stunning.

…fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to “intelligent design”.

Quote I came up with earlier:

Evolution is composed of countless dry, media-unfriendly scientific papers.

Intelligent Design is a Powerpoint presentation.

Wing|esS Wrote:

That is not to say we should believe in the matrix http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/astrono… , but rather that we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think that’s the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a reasonable one.

No, that’s the misdirection ID tries to use. IDists claim that: let’s call DNA information and say that information can only come from intelligence aka the Disco Designer. Let’s call co-adapted parts irreducible complexity and claim that IC can only come from intelligence aka the Disco Designer.

These claims are actually dumber that claiming that planet earth is only 6000 years old, but with enough marketing they can be sold as ooooh, spooky! IDists are not interested in the facts of the matter.

Anyone in the Seattle area interested in taking Wells to task in person? He is having an open-to-the-public book release party. All you have to do to attend is contact Annelise Davis at [Enable javascript to see this email address.] or call (206) 292-0401, ext. 153.

When: September 7, 2006 4:30-6:00 p.m. Where: Rainier Square Atrium in Seattle 1333 Fifth Avenue Cost: Free

Hey, if you actually had to pay money for the book, you might as well get it signed by Dr. Wells, himself.

Oops, sorry I missed the link already provided in the initial post the first time I read it.

Oh my non-god, he’s a Moonie?

Who the hell cares what he thinks? The guy’s a frickin’ cult-headed lunatic!

Are IDers so ethically bankrupt they’ll accept support from anyone, even those who don’t buy into six days in the garden? (I guess that question’s rhetorical.)

Wells pretty much admits he got his biology degree so that he could claim to be a scientist

I cannot tell you how it steams me that someone who is this privileged and has the intellectual ability to pursue biology at this level would choose to snow us “little people” for his own cynical purpose.

I don’t know what I resent more, the fact that these pedigreedy hucksters make a mockery of how the rest of us must wait tables, etc., just to get through college at all (because we actually want to apply what we’ve learned), or that they would do so in order to destroy what is most precious to the world out of their obvious contempt for humanity.

It is a fact that individual members of a mass movement do not love each other, no matter how heartfelt the hugs set to sappy music in the happy-clappy megachurch, but I assure you, the general populace thinks that Wells & Co. are doing what they do out of love for them! I jest not. No, it is I who “hates people.”

Comment #122685

Posted by Kristine on August 25, 2006 11:52 AM (e) | kill

Wells pretty much admits he got his biology degree so that he could claim to be a scientist

I cannot tell you how it steams me that someone who is this privileged and has the intellectual ability to pursue biology at this level would choose to snow us “little people” for his own cynical purpose.

Wells isn’t cynical. He believes Moon is the second jesus. or the third adam. or both. or something.

He’s a cultist retard, is what I’m trying to say.

To assume that all that we can see is really all there is, is, although a reasonable position, not necessarily the truth.

You say there is more than what we can see (or measure, sense etc.). But what earthly use is it as Carl Sagan said, if you insist that there is a fire breathing dragon in my garage that does not give off heat, light, shock waves or anything else? This is even worse that the stupid dodge pulled off by IDiots; that the ‘information’ in DNA etc., is beyond all laws of physics and chemistry and is yet natural and ‘intelligent’ but not supernatural. Bakwas I say!

Check out Wells table of contents page at:

http://www.tparents.org/library/uni[…]leOfContents

with articles on Unification theology interspersed with ID articles. The site tparents.org is the “True Parents” organization of the Unification Church:

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. (Jonathan Wells)

Evolution by Design (Jonathan Wells)

Marriage and the Family: Fall and Restoration (Jonathan Wells)

Marriage and the Family: the Unification Blessing (Jonathan Wells)

The Case For Intelligent Design In The Classroom (Jonathan Wells - October 13, 2005)

Warren exclaimed

Oh my non-god, he’s a Moonie?

Not merely a Moonie, but a Moonie theologian. That means, among other things, that he has somehow theologically incorporated the affirmation of Moon as the second Messiah into some sort of theological system. As the document says

To take this all in, we advise you to relax and open your mind for a while.

So your brains fall right out on the floor.

What I find amusing about Well’s membership in the Unification church is how many fundamentalist Christians who would consider the UC satanic will agree with him, without even investigating his theological background.

Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to “intelligent design”. Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy. In fact there is not a single, clear statement of what was and wasn’t designed. So while the title is modest in some respects, it’s also incorrect in one more: there’s no guide to “intelligent design” in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Ah, well. Maybe next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after … pigs fly.

From Judge Jones’s opinion:

ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73 (Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)). As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully understood. (3:102 (Miller)).

Well, he is right that a fossil record consistent with evolution doesn’t mean it happened. DNA evidence consistent with commen descent doesn’t necessarly mean it happened. Then again, is he retarded?

What annoyed me most were the lies saying slavery was justified by evolution (civil war in 1865, Origin in 1859, something else must’ve been justifying it first) Or that only Darwinism(I still use the term, I’m reclaiming it from creationists, oops, Intelligent design theorists. I so meant ID theorists, not creationists)inspired people to think that human races were of indepedendent origin (evolution from separate prehuman hominids for us, separate creations for them) He never mentions the separate creations idea. Wonder why.

“I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism;.…”

Wow. When I went to school, embryology came up for about 30 seconds in evolutionary biology class. Most of it was in a sentence that went something like “Once upon a time people though that embryos provided a window into evolution since it was though an embryo ‘evolved’ in time-lapse as it developed. That was a stupid idea which was quickly proven wrong”.

I should have paid more attention, turns out that there was a conspiracy brewing! Right up there with “there are no flying saucers in Area 51, now move along”.

Well, forgive me for being REALLY cynical, but we don’t have to create a nation of skeptics to win the battle.

The sixties saw a very quick turnover between racism being the defacto state of affairs to it being socially unacceptable. I’m not sure how many racists were actually convinced that racism was wrong or just that it was no longer acceptable to express such emotions in public. In the aftermath, racism itself has largely been smothered. Not rendered non-existant, of course, but seriously smushed.

Science used to be strongly respected in this country. Not strongly understood, but respected. The image of the kindly elder scientist is just as unrealistic as the Dr. Frankenstein, but there you go.

If we accept that the public largely is never going to care enough to pursue an accurate view of the complexities of the world, isn’t it worthwhile to create a view where they at least respect those of us who do?

Like I said, this is me at my most cynical. Even I don’t agree with this most of the time. Today’s just a bad day for wanting to tollerate idiots.

If we accept that the public largely is never going to care enough to pursue an accurate view of the complexities of the world, isn’t it worthwhile to create a view where they at least respect those of us who do?

Like I said, this is me at my most cynical. Even I don’t agree with this most of the time. Today’s just a bad day for wanting to tollerate idiots.

Let me join you in your cynicism.

The events you want would never come in a nation where sports and celebrity voyeurism is the main pastime.

What the hell is “Darwinism”? Is it anything like “Newtonism”, “Einsteinism” or “Faradayism” … ?

Stop testing me!

IMO, symmetry is the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism. IMO, chaos is natural. Order is mind made.

For more of my thoughts on this, go to:

Why would anyone want more of yet another version of the bogus entropy argument?

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

“Qualitatively, entropy is often associated with the amount of SEEMING disorder in the system. For example, solids (which are typically ordered on the molecular scale) usually have smaller entropy than liquids, and liquids smaller entropy than gases. This happens because the number different microscopic states available to an ordered system is usually much smaller than the number of states available to a system that APPEARS to be disordered given the HUMAN desire for symmetry.”

(Emphasis mine)

Remember, if it seems disorderly to us humans, then it must be disorderly, because it’s us humans who are important. God said so. ;)

Entropy in the sense of disorder isn’t the same as thermodynamic entropy; it’s just a metaphor. A messy desk, for instance, has no more entropy than a tidy one.

The fundamental thing to remember about all of this creationist, intelligent design, propaganda is that there is no controversy of “Darwinism” among professional biologists, among life scientists. The controversy is that some fundamentalist Christians controvert Darwinism. That does not constitute “a controversy about Darwinism.” I, as a Jew, controvert the concept of trinity in Chrisianity. Does that mean that there is a controversy about the trinity? Hardly.

Jacob Silver: “I, as a Jew, controvert the concept of trinity in Chrisianity. Does that mean that there is a controversy about the trinity? Hardly” ************************************* Jacob, everything in reality (and science) is held together by triangles. Life is (or should be) about home and family. (mother, father, and child) Rev. 12:5

I am not a christian either. A christian is someone who thinks God permitted his son to die on a cross. John 3:16 says nothing about that. Blessings Zero

It’s good to see something like this when the creationists are gaining so much power. It angers me both as a scientist and a Christian.

1) Science is science. You don’t get to throw it out just because you don’t understand every single aspect of evolutionary theory.

2) Evolution is the amazing, beautiful “invisible hand” of God. Why would anyone want it to be different? The Creator created evolution (if he created all things), and to deny it is to deny the truth of His Creation.

3) If you need the world to be flat for your faith to be whole, the problem is not with science or God but with you. Faith is FAITH, you can’t “build your house on the sand” and tie it to science or anything else of the material, rational world. And if your faith is secure and well-reasoned, you should not have to.

It’s good to see something like this when the creationists are gaining so much power. They seem to be winning over the students at my university, and I can only see it as a sign of the fall of western civilization. Plus, it angers me both as a scientist *and* a Christian.

1) Science is science. You don’t get to throw it out just because you don’t understand every single aspect of evolutionary theory.

2) Evolution is the amazing, beautiful “invisible hand” of God. Why would anyone want it to be different? The Creator created evolution (if he created all things), and to deny it is to deny the truth of His Creation.

3) If you need the world to be flat for your faith to be whole, the problem is not with science or God but with you. Faith is FAITH, you can’t “build your house on the sand” and tie it to science or anything else of the material, empirical world, because the nature of God is the nature of divine mystery and it’s like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. If your faith is secure and well-reasoned, you should not have to force everything to fit. I went through a similar crisis of faith regarding this myself and came out of it stronger. Don’t fight the truth- take the opportunity to come to a better understanding of God.

sorry about the double post, I couldn’t fix it. :(

Did you know the most popular pastime in America is NOT celebrity voyeurism or sports, but *gardening?*

Whaddaya know.

Well, forgive me for being REALLY cynical, but we don’t have to create a nation of skeptics to win the battle.

You’re right, we don’t need to create a nation of skeptics to win the battle. It’s what’s needed to win the war. Convincing the public to follow our lead instead of the creationists’ is only a temporary solution.

It is not that the majority of people should accept any particular position, but that they should examine all potential positions skeptically and with the use of reason - that is what is vitally necessary. And it almost certainly will never happen again in this country, if indeed it ever happened.

Jonathan Wells’s education was wasted on him. All those years of study and searching for truth, for what? To be even further from truth than when he began. It’s sad.…..Not even mentioning all the trees that have died to supply the paper for his books, as well as the books of others like him.

Re “All those years of study and searching for truth, for what?”

As I understand it, he never was searching for truth - he went in already convinced that his opinions were “Truth”. [rolls eyes]

Re “All those years of study and searching for truth, for what?”

As I understand it, he never was searching for truth as such - he went in already convinced that his opinions were “Truth”. [rolls eyes]

Re “As I understand it he never was searching for truth as such”…

When he “went in” I agree with you, however I was refering to events through the course of Wells’s life, such as prior studies, the influence of Rev Moon and any other earlier influences, leading up to his perception of “truth”. Furthermore, even if one “went in” already convinced of what they ultimately perceive as the “truth”, it is likely that they are still searching for further “truths” to back up their ultimate perception of “truth”. Sorry for not being more clear. - What’s with this? [rolls eyes] - Are you rolling your eyes at my statement or at Wells’s conviction of “truth”?

Re “- Are you rolling your eyes at my statement or at Wells’s conviction of “truth”?”

At Wells.

i need help

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another…

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on August 25, 2006 12:00 AM.

Now Behe puts D. James Kennedy at arms length was the previous entry in this blog.

SMART Grant Update is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter