Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Jonathan Wells

In a recent interview for Salvo magazine, I was asked what advice on junk DNA I would give to Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins.

On November 3, UD posted my response. According to the first comment following that post,

Jonathan Wells is the last person from whom Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins would solicit advice.

I agree. But the commenter, “Single Malt,” went on to question whether I’m qualified to give advice to anybody about anything in biology:

For those not familiar here is a quote…?“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” That’s incredibly damning if true. It basically tells us that before Wells had even studied the subject he had been instructed to devote his life to destroying it! ?Does this not color completely anything Wells publishes concerning the biological sciences?

Now, I don’t know who “Single Malt” is. To the best of my knowledge he (or she) has never met me, spoken with me on the telephone, or corresponded with me by letter or email. Since I like single malt scotch, however, if he or she had contacted me I would have been happy to explain over a friendly drink why I wrote the sentence quoted above.

Here’s what I would have said:

As an undergraduate at Princeton and Berkeley in the 1960s I studied mathematics, geology, physics and biology (with minors in philosophy and German). Along the way—despite my upbringing as a nominal Presbyterian—I became an agnostic and a Darwinist.(Note: By “Darwinism,” I mean the claim that all living things are descended from one or a few common ancestors, modified solely by unguided natural processes such as variation and selection. For the sake of brevity, I use the term here also to include Neo-Darwinism, which attributes new variations to genetic mutations.)

In 1963, I dropped out of Princeton and drove a New York City taxicab until I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1964. While spending two years in Germany as a medical laboratory technologist, I became opposed to the Vietnam War, and after I was separated from active duty in 1966 I transferred to Berkeley and joined the antiwar movement.

The Army called me back as a reservist in 1967, but I refused and spent a year and a half in prison. After being released from Leavenworth in 1969, I completed my bachelor’s degree at Berkeley. By 1970, however, I was repulsed by the increasingly violent and hypocritical Berkeley Left, and I soon headed for the hills. Living in a cabin I built in the mountains of Mendocino County, I was transformed by the beauty, peace and evident design around me. I ceased being an agnostic and a Darwinist.

In 1974 I joined Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. In 1976 I entered Unification Theological Seminary in New York, where I studied the Pentateuch under a Romanian Orthodox Jewish rabbi; the New Testament under a Reformed Church of America minister; the Early Church Fathers under a Greek Orthodox priest; philosophy under a Polish Roman Catholic priest with three earned doctorates; medieval theology under a Church of Christ missionary with a doctorate from the University of Tübingen; and Reformation and modern theology under a Presbyterian with a doctorate from Harvard.

I read—and was repelled by—modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and tried to re-fashion Christian doctrine in the light of it. I also took advantage of a weekly seminary shuttle to New York City to do research at the Columbia University biology library, where I became convinced that the Darwinian mechanism of accidental mutations and natural selection is incapable of producing the changes required by evolution.

As I researched more I concluded that the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism is its assumption that genetic programs control embryo development, with DNA mutations supplying raw materials for evolution. At the time, however, I did not question Darwin’s claim that all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Reverend Moon occasionally criticized Darwinism in his speeches, because it conflicted with reason and denied design. He often visited the seminary during my two years there, and we students would walk with him in the nearby fields and woods. He urged us (among other things) to pray in order to find out what God wanted us to do with our lives. I followed his advice, and my prayers strengthened the conviction I had arrived at through my studies that Darwinism (like Marxism and Freudianism) is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science—and that I should set out to destroy its dominance in our culture.

In 1978, I was one of a score of seminary graduates awarded church scholarships to pursue doctorates in religious studies at other schools. I went to Yale, where I did research on the nineteenth-century Darwinian controversies and received a Ph.D. in theology in 1985. After that, I was appointed Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City.

I still felt called to devote myself to toppling Darwinism, however, so in 1988 I resigned from my position to return to graduate school—this time in biology. I applied to several schools in California and moved there with my family, only to learn that I had not been admitted anywhere. I took a job as a medical laboratory technologist (the Army had taught me a trade!) and sometime afterwards went back to New York to attend a meeting between Unification Church leaders and Reverend Moon. When he learned that I was planning to go back to graduate school he admonished me not to do it, saying that I was too old (I was 45 at the time). After the meeting, however, I prayed for a long time and decided that I had to continue on my course.

I returned to California and applied again to various graduate schools. In 1989 I was granted interviews at Cal Tech, Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, and U.C. Davis. I chose Berkeley, where I completed a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology in 1994. By then—having been exposed to the actual evidence—I was skeptical of Darwin’s claim that all living things share a common ancestor.

A senior Unification Church leader then asked me to write something for other church members explaining why I went for a second Ph.D. even after Reverend Moon had admonished me against doing so. I wrote an essay that I thought would be for in-house use only, but it was subsequently posted on the Internet without my knowledge or permission.

I first learned that my essay was available online in 2001, when Jerry Coyne made it the alpha and omega of his review in Nature of my book Icons of Evolution.

Since then, many of my critics have quoted the now-infamous line, “Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” (For a sampling, just do a Google search on the words.) Remarkably, Darwinists never quote much else from my essay, even though the 18 words in this one line represent only 1% of it, while a subsequent passage dealing with my scientific reasons for rejecting Darwinism represents 37%. Talk about quote mining…

Nor (as far as I know) have any Darwinists bothered to learn anything about the context in which I wrote the essay. If they had, they would know that Reverend Moon did not instruct or command me to destroy Darwinism (though years later he commended me on publishing Icons of Evolution.)

So, can I be trusted to say anything concerning the biological sciences? I freely admit that I was motivated to pursue a biology Ph.D., in part, because of my religious views. On the other hand, Francis Crick freely admitted (to historian Horace Freeland Judson) that he went into biology, in part, because of his atheistic views. What ultimately mattered in Crick’s case was not his motivation, but whether his biological claims were consistent with the evidence. The same is true in my case. That’s why I cite abundant scientific references in my publications—such as Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, The Myth of Junk DNA, and “Why Darwinism Is False”, a detailed critique of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution Is True.

I encourage readers not simply to take my word for anything, but to go the scientific literature and check for themselves. After all, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.

Now, wouldn’t it have been more enjoyable listening to that over a glass of Glenlivet or Macallan?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Biologists found that only 2% of the genome consisted of code for proteins. The other 98% was (wrongly) assumed to be evolutionary junk. Dr. John Mattick, professor of molecular biology at University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that the 'junk DNA' theory was an example of scientific tradition derailing objective analysis of the facts. Much of what used to be considered 'junk' is now noted to contain a recipe, if you will, for regulatory RNA, which plays a key role in how the cell develops, matures, and functions.Barb
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
No- there wasn't any such prediction. What happened was that scientists observed large amounts of non-protein coding DNA and couldn't figure out what was up. Then they starting finding functions for some of this non-coding DNA. But the "prediction" was AFTER- as in once "junk" DNA was assumed then evis said "well our position predicted that because it is an imperfect processes but no designer worth its salt would ever design junk into the genome"Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Hi paulmc- When Moran spews nonsense like:
Most of the IDiots at the Discovery Institute feel threatened by the existence of large amounts of junk DNA in some eukaryotic genomes, including our own.
It is obvious that he is just a bloviating coward who should be ignored.Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
further notes:
"There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005 Scientists' 3-D View of Genes-at-Work Is Paradigm Shift in Genetics - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Highly coordinated chromosomal choreography leads genes and the sequences controlling them, which are often positioned huge distances apart on chromosomes, to these 'hot spots'. Once close together within the same transcription factory, genes get switched on (a process called transcription) at an appropriate level at the right time in a specific cell type. This is the first demonstration that genes encoding proteins with related physiological role visit the same factory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215160649.htm Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm DNA Computer Excerpt: DNA computers will work through the use of DNA-based logic gates. These logic gates are very much similar to what is used in our computers today with the only difference being the composition of the input and output signals.,,, With the use of DNA logic gates, a DNA computer the size of a teardrop will be more powerful than today’s most powerful supercomputer. A DNA chip less than the size of a dime will have the capacity to perform 10 trillion parallel calculations at one time as well as hold ten terabytes of data. The capacity to perform parallel calculations, much more trillions of parallel calculations, is something silicon-based computers are not able to do. As such, a complex mathematical problem that could take silicon-based computers thousands of years to solve can be done by DNA computers in hours. http://www.tech-faq.com/dna-computer.html 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Astonishing DNA complexity update Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update
etc.. etc.. etc.. verse and music:
Isaiah 40:28 Have you never heard? Have you never understood? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of all the earth. He never grows weak or weary. No one can measure the depths of his understanding. Michael W. Smith - Agnus Dei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPBmFwBSGb0
bornagain77
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
I'm curious if 'junk' 'excess' 'useless' or whatever DNA was predicted, before it was found??butifnot
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
It's almost as if you didn't read a word I wrote. 'Such silliness' referred to your wild misrepresentation of Larry Moran's extensive review. Also, let's not have another thread derailed by your irrelevant linkfest.paulmc
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
paulmc, despite your protestations of 'such silliness', I find the neo-Darwinian position to be completely absurd:,,, Tell you what why don't you tell me how neo-Darwinism accounts for quantum information in DNA in the first place!
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US A few comments on ‘non-local’ epigenetic information implicated in 3-D spatial organization of Body Plans: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iNy78O6ZpU8wpFIgkILi85TvhC9mSqzUSE_jzbksoHY Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5950/289 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is well beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man). John Sanford - Genetic Entropy The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Trifonov EN. - 1989 Excerpt: Nucleotide sequences carry genetic information of many different kinds, not just instructions for protein synthesis (triplet code). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673451 "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010 DNA Caught Rock 'N Rollin': On Rare Occasions DNA Dances Itself Into a Different Shape - January 2011 Excerpt: Because critical interactions between DNA and proteins are thought to be directed by both the sequence of bases and the flexing of the molecule, these excited states represent a whole new level of information contained in the genetic code, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128104244.htm
Perhaps a single protein fold?
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00
Seeing as atheists are the ones trying to call such complexity junk, or whatever, I think the burden is clearly on you to actually produce evidence instead of bluster!!!bornagain77
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
BA77, such silliness. Larry Moran did not write a 14-part review in which he was "simply denying that neo-Darwinists predicted junk DNA". Go have a read. There are a number of strong lines of evidence that suggest junk DNA comprises a majority of the human genome. If you have a worthwhile response here, it should comprise a quantitative reanalysis of what proportion of the genome is functional, and - if this proportion is much larger than currently predicted - how this is maintained under purifying selection considering the mutational load.paulmc
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Well Paul, if simply denying that neo-Darwinists predicted junk DNA constitutes a rebuttal for you, I don't know if you are really wanting to see this issue fairly: notes: Junk DNA Predictions By Evolutionists
Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA – yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such - March 2011 Excerpt: Some people revise history by claiming that no mainstream biologists ever regarded non-protein-coding DNA as “junk.” This claim is easily disproved: Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel published an article in Nature in 1980 (284: 604-607) arguing that such DNA “is little better than junk,” and “it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively” for functions in it. Since then, Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, University of Chicago biologist Jerry A. Coyne, and University of California–Irvine biologist John C. Avise have all argued that most of our DNA is junk, and that this provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins argued similarly in his widely read 2006 book The Language of God. It is true that some biologists (such as Thomas Cavalier-Smith and Gabriel Dover) have long been skeptical of “junk DNA” claims, but probably a majority of biologists since 1980 have gone along with the myth. The revisionists are misinformed (or misinforming). https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/jonathan-wells-on-his-book-the-myth-of-junk-dna-yes-it-is-a-darwinist-myth-and-he-nails-it-as-such/#more-18154 Casey Luskin response to Farrel - several quotes from Jonathan Wells book - 'The Myth of Junk DNA' - May 2011 http://blogs.forbes.com/johnfarrell/2011/05/20/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-junk-dna/#comment-153 Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Orgel LE, Crick FH. - 1980 The DNA of higher organisms usually falls into two classes, one specific and the other comparatively nonspecific. It seems plausible that most of the latter originates by the spreading of sequences which had little or no effect on the phenotype. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7366731 Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional. The slow, painful death of junk DNA: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work....Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation...Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death Susumu Ohno, a leader in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology, explained in 1972 in an early study of non-coding DNA that, "they are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?" In 1994, the authoritative textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-authored by National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts, suggested (incorrectly!) that introns are "largely genetic 'junk'": Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk” Soon thereafter, the 1995 edition of Voet & Voet's Biochemistry textbook explained that "a possibility that must be seriously entertained is that much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome..." Will Darwinists try to Rewrite the History of Junk-DNA? In 1996, leading origin of life theorist Christian de Duve wrote: "The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." (Richard Dawkins makes similar pronouncements that DNA is junk in an article after 1998) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/will_darwinists_try_to_pull_a.html Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true “purpose” of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA. …. “creationists…might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” Richard Dawkins - Selfish Gene https://uncommondescent.com/books-of-interest/new-book-junk-dna-junked-in-favour-of-what/#comment-374475 Another leading biologist, Sydney Brenner argued in a biology journal in 1998 that: "The excess DNA in our genomes is junk, and it is there because it is harmless, as well as being useless, and because the molecular processes generating extra DNA outpace those getting rid of it." The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk: “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John S. Mattick Scientific American (November, 2003) http://www.evolutionnews.org/ "To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!" Michael Denton
verse and music:
Psalm 139: 14-15 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body." Amy Grant - Better Than A Hallelujah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm5kx3xqmg0
bornagain77
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Over at Sandwalk, Larry Moran has a chapter-by-chapter review of The Myth of Junk DNA. All links are listed in the final part here. Would like to see Wells - or any other interested party - respond to this detailed criticism. If a response exists, I'd appreciate a link as it has slipped under my radar.paulmc
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
I second that. Dr. Wells, I have always particularly admired the calm clarity with which you express your views. Of the many cogent things you have said in interviews I have seen, one I particularly like and have used myself (shamelessly plagiarizing, I admit) is, speaking of the many mutagenesis experiments on fruit flies, that there have been only three results, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, and a dead fruit fly. I also admire the honesty you display in the current post. I expect it will be quote mined, but what can you do?Bruce David
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
By "Goodbye", do you mean you are banning sigle_malt?Timbo
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Single_Malt You fail to realize that Jonathan Wells has embarked on a noble mission of restoring science to its foundations of objective truth from the anti-religious stance of Darwinism. I expect you think you uphold science based on truth. However, I think that you probably fail to realize that you have probably a priori restricted science to purely physical stochastic processes and have excluded any possibility of objectively examining and testing for possibility of the existence or involvement of intelligent agents. e.g., forensics assumes that intelligent agents may be involved, and explicitly examines whether evidence points to natural or intelligent causes. Until you recognize and correct that foundational fallacy in Darwinian "science", you are unlikely to recognize that the amoral principles of Darwinism lead to the immoral "might makes right" and all the consequent evils of individuals and regimes acting on that principle instead of "love your neighbor as yourself". e.g. See The Black Book of Communism.DLH
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
How about we end this conversation on a happy note? Dear Mr. Wells, thank you for responding to your critics here at Uncommon Descent. I must say through the years I had lost my faith... in science. I cannot think of a higher goal for a Scientist/Author than inspiring the reader. Because of your books, you rekindled my love of science. I have now read most of the pro ID books (The Design of Life being my favorite) as well as many pro-evolution books. It must be hard for you because the critics are always the loudest, but a lot of people really appreciate and respect the work your doing. Thank you again Mr. Wells, Julian.julianbre
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
This is my own personal opinion. I have no connection whatsoever with anyone else who posts to this site other than a commonality of interest and in some cases similar views. That said, let me clarify a little. The following is my view of the history of Darwinism: When Darwin published Origin, there was gong on in European intellectual culture a war, you might say, between atheist materialism and Christianity. Origin of Species gave the materialists a powerful new weapon in that war, and people like Huxley used it to full advantage. When Darwinism was finally consolidated with genetics into the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and became the established scientific explanation, theists (Christians and others) were forced to accommodate it into their own views. But as scientific advances in the last 40 years began to reveal the staggering complexity and exquisite engineering of living systems, and as other scientific problems with Darwinism began to emerge, scientists who were not atheists and thus had neither an emotional nor an intellectual stake in the truth of the theory began to realize that the only viable explanation for the existence of life was that it is designed. This then gave those theists like Jonathan Wells (and myself) who see atheism as an idea that has severe negative consequences for society a new weapon to counter the advantage Darwinism has given to the atheists for the last 150 years. However, this does not negate the fact that the original and ongoing impetus for ID is at bottom scientific. The science shows clearly to anyone with an open mind that Darwinism as an explanation for macro-evolutionary change is false, and the only viable alternative explanation is ID. And there are scientists, such as Michael Behe, who are proponents of ID that seem to have no particular religious agenda at all. (He is a catholic, and the Vatican has officially taken the position that there is no conflict between Darwinism and faith.) There are even people like David Berlinski who see that Darwinism has failed but who take a stance of agnosticism, both with respect to the existence of God and with respect to what is the explanation for the existence of life. On the other hand, the Darwinists, particularly those like Dawkins and Coyn who are highly visible and vocal in their defense of Darwinism, clearly see in ID a threat to their cherished philosophy of atheism, and in defending Darwinism they are defending their metaphysical position, and they do so with far more intensity than is normally brought to scientific disputes.Bruce David
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Bruce David
This debate is and has been from the very beginning a contest between materialism and a belief in the existence of a Creator. This is why it generates so much more heat than any other scientific debate with which I am familiar. Since my own metaphysics includes the existence of and a very large role for God, I am quite happy that the actual science overwhelmingly shows that Darwinism fails as an explanation for macro-evolutionary change, and the more science discovers about the exquisitely complex engineering of living systems, the stronger this refutation of Darwinism becomes.
But ID is not supposed to be about supporting any religious views. KariosFocus has been ranting at me all week for suggesting the same thing you just wrote. Maybe you two should talk and get the story straight.GinoB
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Thank you Dr Wells, your work stands on it's own, but it's always fascinating to learn more about the man behind the science. Well I really think Single_Malt has exposed himself for what he truly is; a Darwinian zealot interested in nothing but ad hominem attacks. His response to a cordial response from Dr Wells, nothing more than dismissive arrogance. Just a little ironic the news following was Frank Turek asks: Why do atheists so often seem to be angry?Stu7
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
If Darwinism were actually science, then dedicating your life to overthrowing it WOULD be on a par with dedicating your life to overthrowing the standard model. But it isn't. It isn't science. What it is is metaphysics masquerading as science. It is, as people like Dawkins and others make clear, apologetics for a materialist/atheist worldview. (Theistic evolutionists notwithstanding. They have their own theological/philosophical reasons for wanting Darwinism to be true that also have very little to do with science.) This debate is and has been from the very beginning a contest between materialism and a belief in the existence of a Creator. This is why it generates so much more heat than any other scientific debate with which I am familiar. Since my own metaphysics includes the existence of and a very large role for God, I am quite happy that the actual science overwhelmingly shows that Darwinism fails as an explanation for macro-evolutionary change, and the more science discovers about the exquisitely complex engineering of living systems, the stronger this refutation of Darwinism becomes. I predict that within the next 20 to 30 years, not only will Darwinism be relegated to the dustbin of history, along with Ptolemaic cosmology, phlogiston, and the ether, it will take atheism along with it.Bruce David
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Methinks he ain't an upright biped... :)Joseph
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Imagine a collection of like-minded folk got together to “overthrow the stifling dominance of particle physics”
So your first comment is an invalid caricature.
Now, is there realistically any world in which that line wouldn’t have become an albatross around the authors neck?
And you second comment applauds the defenders of materialism for foresaking the science to do a good job at obfuscation.
You really ought to waited a little longer before posting, though. My last screed against you was pretty ‘out there’; given a few more days I’m fairly certain I could have placed you at Dealey Plaza. Next time…next time.
And your final comment is adolescent narccicism on display. Good job.Upright BiPed
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Well if particle physics was as easy a target as Darwinism, people would be in favor of the Hindus. As for:
Now, is there realistically any world in which that line wouldn’t have become an albatross around the authors neck?
Yes- a world interested in reality, as opposed to your position's imagination-based science dominated by unpayable promissory notes.Joseph
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Dealey Plaza? You mean from where Kennedy was assassinated? Some of us remember that. Goodbye.News
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Thanks for your post Jonathan. It made for interesting reading. I'll restrict myself to a couple of brief comments and let the resident denizens evicerate me at their leisure.
Since then, many of my critics have quoted the now-infamous line, “Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” (For a sampling, just do a Google search on the words.) Remarkably, Darwinists never quote much else from my essay, even though the 18 words in this one line represent only 1% of it, while a subsequent passage dealing with my scientific reasons for rejecting Darwinism represents 37%.
You can't really complain, though. Imagine a collection of like-minded folk got together to "overthrow the stifling dominance of particle physics" and "replace it with a science consonant with Hindu principles". Further imagine that one of the most prominent members of this group wrote up an essay on why they sought further qualifications in QED. This essay amongst other information contained the exclamation;
"Pandit, my prayers and my studies convinced me to devote my life to destroying the Standard Model".
Now, is there realistically any world in which that line wouldn't have become an albatross around the authors neck?
Talk about quote mining…
Quote-mining, Jonathan? You really want to go there? You really ought to waited a little longer before posting, though. My last screed against you was pretty 'out there'; given a few more days I'm fairly certain I could have placed you at Dealey Plaza. Next time....next time.Single_Malt
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
What are the odds any of those schools would grant Dr Wells an interview today- say for another PhD in some other biological/ biochemical science?Joseph
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Although I'm fairly certain Single Malt will not pay much attention to the context of what you wrote, I want to thank you, Dr. Wells, for clearing that ad hominem from Single Malt up.bornagain77
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply