|
|
- [English Supplement to SEDIN - Bulletin No. 7]
-
ENGLISH SECTION
-
THE NOBEL SCIENTISTS:
What They Say about God
- BreakPoint with Charles Colson Commentary #001013 -
10/13/2000 The Nobel Scientists: What They Say about God
-
- Scientists around the world have been sleeping
lightly this week, many hoping for a call from Stockholm.
So far, the members of the Nobel Academy have announced
the winners in chemistry, physics, and physiology or
medicine -- in each case they were group awards. And, the
big prize in economics and the Peace Prize are being
awarded as well.
-
- These awards have special significance this year,
because it's the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize.
But, what does it mean for Christians? We're often told
that scientists are all atheists. Well, not so. First
off, surveys show that about 40 percent of scientists
believe in God. But, you ask, what about the top
scientists -- the ones who've won the Nobel Prize?
-
- The German physicist Max Born, who pioneered quantum
mechanics, said, "Those who say that the study of science
makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people." He
was right, of course, and over the years, many other
Nobel laureates have agreed with him.
-
- American physicist Arno Penzias shared the 1978 Nobel
Prize for discovering microwaves in space -- patterns
that physicists have interpreted as showing that the
universe was created from nothing. Penzias said, "If I
had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis,
some of the Psalms, and other passages of Scripture, I
would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the
origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific
data."
-
- German-British researcher Ernst Boris Chain was
awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with
penicillin. Chain says, "The principle of [divine]
purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever he
looks ... The probability for such an event as the origin
of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just
too small to be seriously considered ..."
-
- Chain also said that, "The assumption of directive
forces in the origin and development of vital processes
becomes a necessity in any kind of interpretation."
-
- American physicist Arthur Compton discovered what we
call the Compton Effect, relating to X-rays. He said,
"For me, faith begins with the realization that a supreme
intelligence brought the universe into being and created
man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for
an orderly, intelligent universe testifies to the
greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God
...' "
-
- William D. Phillips won the 1997 Nobel Prize in
chemistry for using lasers to produce temperatures only a
fraction of a degree above absolute zero. Phillips once
quipped that so many of his colleagues were Christians he
couldn't walk across his church's fellowship hall without
"tripping over a dozen physicists."
-
- It's been the conventional wisdom that scientists are
atheists, but not so, by a long shot. Professor Richard
Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as
many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic scientists."
But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the
hand of God in the universe is remarkably high.
-
- As this week's winners appear on the news, watch what
they say. If they're like many of their predecessors,
they may surprise us. Because, increasing numbers of
scientists are discovering in the intelligent design
school and in studies of cell structure that what you and
I believe by faith is also good science.
-
- Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries
-
- "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary
on news and trends from a Christian perspective. Heard on
more than 1000 radio stations nationwide, BreakPoint
transcripts are also available on the Internet. If you
know of others who would enjoy receiving BreakPoint in
their e-mail box each day, forward this e-mail to them or
tell them they can sign up on our Web site at
www.breakpoint.org.
-
-
PRESS RELEASE - ON THE NEW BOOK
-
ICONS OF EVOLUTION
- BY DR. JONATHAN WELLS
-
- New scientific book highlights false claims of
evidence for Darwinian evolution
-
- Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells due out Oct.
15
-
- A brand new book, "Icons of Evolution" (Regnery,
2000), by molecular biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells
highlights how mythology, falsehoods and hoaxes within
today's scientific circles pass for evidence of Darwinian
evolution.
-
- Icons of Evolution tackles ten of the most prominent
arguments neo-Darwinists use as examples of evidence for
evolution and shows how each is misrepresented and
misused to support Darwin's theory of naturalism.
-
- "Dogmatic Darwinists claim that nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution," said
Wells, a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute's Center
for the Renewal of Science and Culture. "Then they
misrepresent the evidence to promote their view. The
truth is, nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evidence."
-
- In fact, says Wells; "it turns out that the evidence
is not evidence at all. Over the past decade known
scientific frauds were put forth as evidence for
evolution, such as Haeckel's faked embryo drawings and
the myth of the peppered moth."
-
- Many leading high school and undergraduate biology
textbooks present students with drawings of similarities
between fish and human embryos, and claim that these
similarities are evidence that fish and humans share a
common ancestor. "Embryologists have known for over a
century that these drawings were faked," said Wells.
-
- Photographs of light- and dark- colored moths on tree
trunks are used to teach students how natural selection
altered the proportions of the two forms when trees were
darkened by pollution during the industrial revolution.
Scientists have known since the 1980s that the moths do
not even rest on tree trunks, and all of the pictures
have been staged, Wells added. "In "Icons of Evolution"
Jonathan has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims
and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook
discussions of biological origins for many decades, in
spite of contrary evidence," said Dr. Dean Kenyon
Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University. "He
has done us all, the scientific community, educators, and
the wider public, a great service."
-
- Besides Haekel's fraudulent drawings and the myth of
the peppered moth, some of the other false or misleading
images described in detail by Dr. Wells in "Icons of
Evolution" include:
-
- * a laboratory flask containing a simulation of
the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric
sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living
cells;
-
- * the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed
from fossil and molecular evidence;
-
- * similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a
porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand
that point to their origin in a common ancestor;
-
- * fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing
that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials
for evolution;
-
- "Wells demonstrates with stunning clarity that the
textbook examples Darwinists themselves chose as the
pillars of their theory are all false or misleading,"
said Dr. Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box,"
and Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University
in Pennsylvania.
-
- "This is one of the most important books ever written
about the evolution controversy," said Phillip E.
Johnson, professor of law, University of California at
Berkeley, author of "The Wedge of Truth" and "Darwin on
Trial." "It shows how devotion to the ideology of
Darwinism has led to textbooks which are full of
misinformation."
-
- Dr. Wells is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and has a
Ph.D. one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the
University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of
the forthcoming book Icons of Evolution (Regnery, Oct.
2000) and Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism (Edwin
Mellen Press, 1988).
-
- For more information on Dr. Jonathan Wells and "Icons
of Evolution" visit
http://www.iconsofevolution.com
on the internet. For media inquiries or to schedule an
interview with Dr. Wells, call Rob Crowther at (206)
292-0401 ext. 107, or send e-mail to
robcr@discovery.org
-
INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? -Why
much of what we teach about evolution is wrong
- (Washington DC: Regnery, 2000)
-
- by Jonathan Wells
-
- "Science is the search for the truth," wrote chemist
Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes. Bruce Alberts,
current President of the U. S. National Academy of
Sciences, agrees. "Science and lies cannot coexist," said
Alberts in May, 2000, quoting Israeli statesman Shimon
Peres. "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot
lie scientifically. Science is basically the search of
truth." For most people, the opposite of science is myth.
A myth is a story that may fulfill a subjective need, or
reveal something profound about the human psyche, but as
commonly used it is not an account of objective reality.
"Most scientists wince," writes former Science editor
Roger Lewin, "when the word 'myth' is attached to what
they see as a pursuit of the truth."
-
- Of course, science has mythical elements, because all
human enterprises do. But scientists are right to wince
when their pronouncements are called myths, because their
goal as scientists is to minimize subjective
story-telling and maximize objective truth. Truth-seeking
is not only noble, but also enormously useful. By
providing us with the closest thing we have to a true
understanding of the natural world, science enables us to
live safer, healthier and more productive lives. If
science weren't the search for truth, our bridges
wouldn't support the weight we put on them, our lives
wouldn't be as long as they are, and modern technological
civilization wouldn't exist. Story-telling is a valuable
enterprise, too. Without stories, we would have no
culture. But we do not call on story-tellers to build
bridges or perform surgery. For such tasks, we prefer
people who have disciplined themselves to understand the
realities of steel or flesh.
-
- The Discipline of Science
-
- How do scientists discipline themselves to understand
the natural world? Philosophers of science have answered
this question in a variety of ways, but one thing is
clear: Any theory that purports to be scientific must
somehow, at some point, be compared with observations or
experiments. According to a 1998 booklet on science
teaching issued by the National Academy of Sciences, "it
is the nature of science to test and retest explanations
against the natural world." Theories that survive
repeated testing may be tentatively regarded as true
statements about the world. But if there is persistent
conflict between theory and evidence, the former must
yield to the latter. As seventeenth-century philosopher
of science Francis Bacon put it, we must obey Nature in
order to command her. When science fails to obey nature,
bridges collapse and patients die on the operating table.
Testing theories against the evidence never ends.
-
- The National Academy's booklet correctly states that
"all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to
change as new evidence becomes available." It doesn't
matter how long a theory has been held, or how many
scientists currently believe it. If contradictory
evidence turns up, the theory must be reevaluated or even
abandoned. Otherwise it is not science, but myth. To
insure that theories are tested objectively and do not
become subjective myths, the testing must be public
rather than private. "This process of public scrutiny,"
according to the National Academy's booklet, "is an
essential part of science. It works to eliminate
individual bias and subjectivity, because others must
also be able to determine whether a proposed explanation
is consistent with the available evidence." Within the
scientific community, this process is called "peer
review." Some scientific claims are so narrowly technical
that they can be properly evaluated only by specialists.
In such cases, the "peers" are a handful of experts. In a
surprising number of instances, however, the average
person is probably as competent to make a judgment as the
most highly trained scientist. If a theory of gravity
predicts that heavy objects will fall upwards, it doesn't
take an astrophysicist to see that the theory is wrong.
And if a picture of an embryo doesn't look like the real
thing, it doesn't take an embryologist to see that the
picture is false.
-
- So an average person with access to the evidence
should be able to understand and evaluate many scientific
claims. The National Academy's booklet acknowledged this
by opening with Thomas Jefferson's call for "the
diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure
foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom
and happiness." The booklet continued: "Jefferson saw
clearly what has become increasingly evident since then:
the fortunes of a nation rest on the ability of its
citizens to understand and use information about the
world around them." U. S. District Judge James Graham
affirmed this Jeffersonian wisdom in an Ohio newspaper
column in May, 2000. Graham wrote: "Science is not an
inscrutable priesthood. Any person of reasonable
intelligence should, with some diligence, be able to
understand and critically evaluate a scientific theory."
-
- Both the National Academy's booklet and Judge
Graham's newspaper column were written in the context of
the present controversy over evolution. But the former
was written to defend Darwin's theory, while the latter
was written to defend some of its critics. In other
words, defenders as well as critics of Darwinian
evolution are appealing to the intelligence and wisdom of
the American people to resolve the controversy. This book
was written in the conviction that scientific theories in
general, and Darwinian evolution in particular, can be
evaluated by any intelligent person with access to the
evidence. But before looking at the evidence for
evolution, we must know what evolution is.
-
- What is Evolution?
-
- Biological evolution is the theory that all living
things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that
lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are
descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn
came from still more primitive animals. This is the
primary meaning of "evolution" among biologists.
"Biological evolution," according to the National
Academy' booklet, "explains that living things share
common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives
rise to new species. Darwin called this process 'descent
with modification,' and it remains a good definition of
biological evolution today." For Charles Darwin, descent
with modification was the origin of all living things
after the first organisms. He wrote in The Origin of
Species: "I view all beings not as special creations, but
as the lineal descendants of some few beings" that lived
in the distant past. The reason living things are now so
different from each other, Darwin believed, is that they
have been modified by natural selection, or survival of
the fittest: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has
been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of
modification."
-
- When proponents of Darwin's theory are responding to
critics, they sometimes claim that "evolution" means
simply change over time. But this is clearly an evasion.
No rational person denies the reality of change, and we
did not need Charles Darwin to convince us of it. If
"evolution" meant only this, it would be utterly
uncontroversial. Nobody believes that biological
evolution is simply change over time. Only slightly less
evasive is the statement that descent with modification
occurs. Of course it does, because all organisms within a
single species are related through descent with
modification. We see this in our own families, and plant
and animal breeders see it in their work. But this still
misses the point. No one doubts that descent with
modification occurs in the course of ordinary biological
reproduction. The question is whether descent with
modification accounts for the origin of new species--in
fact, of every species. Like change over time, descent
with modification within a species is utterly
uncontroversial. But Darwinian evolution claims much
more. In particular, it claims that descent with
modification explains the origin and diversification of
all living things. The only way anyone can determine
whether this claim is true is by comparing it with
observations or experiments. Like all other scientific
theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually
compared with the evidence. If it does not fit the
evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned--otherwise
it is not science, but myth.
-
- Evidence for Evolution
-
- When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian
evolution, most people--including most biologists--give
the same set of examples, because all of them learned
biology from the same few textbooks. The most common
examples are:
-
- * a laboratory flask containing a simulation of
the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric
sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living
cells;
-
- * the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed
from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular
evidence;
-
- * similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a
porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand
that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common
ancestor;
-
- * pictures of similarities in early embryos
showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human
beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;
-
- * Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its
jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between
ancient reptiles and modern birds;
-
- * peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how
camouflage and predatory birds produced the most
famous example of evolution by natural selection;
-
- * Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands,
thirteen separate species that diverged from one when
natural selection produced differences in their beaks,
and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of
evolution;
-
- * fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing
that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials
for evolution;
-
- * a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that
refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was
directed; and
-
- * drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into
humans, showing that we are just animals and that our
existence is merely a by-product of purposeless
natural causes.
-
- These examples are so frequently used as evidence for
Darwin's theory that most of them have been called
"icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or
another, misrepresent the truth.
-
- Science or Myth?
-
- Some of these icons of evolution present assumptions
or hypotheses as though they were observed facts; in
Stephen Jay Gould's words, they are "incarnations of
concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature."
Others conceal raging controversies among biologists that
have far-reaching implications for evolutionary theory.
Worst of all, some are directly contrary to
well-established scientific evidence. Most biologists are
unaware of these problems. Indeed, most biologists work
in fields far removed from evolutionary biology. Most of
what they know about evolution, they learned from biology
textbooks and the same magazine articles and television
documentaries that are seen by the general public. But
the textbooks and popular presentations rely primarily on
the icons of evolution, so as far as many biologists are
concerned the icons are the evidence for evolution.
-
- Some biologists are aware of difficulties with a
particular icon because it distorts the evidence in their
own field. When they read the scientific literature in
their specialty, they can see that the icon is misleading
or downright false. But they may feel that this is just
an isolated problem, especially when they are assured
that Darwin's theory is supported by overwhelming
evidence from other fields. If they believe in the
fundamental correctness of Darwinian evolution, they may
set aside their misgivings about the particular icon they
know something about. On the other hand, if they voice
their misgivings they may find it difficult to gain a
hearing among their colleagues, because (as we shall see)
criticizing Darwinian evolution is extremely unpopular
among English-speaking biologists. This may be why the
problems with the icons of evolution are not more widely
known. And this is why many biologists will be just as
surprised as the general public to learn how serious and
widespread those problems are.
-
- The following chapters compare the icons of evolution
with published scientific evidence, and reveal that much
of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact
raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian
evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be
our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them
are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the
theory? Is it science, or myth?
-
-
About the Author: Jonathan Wells
-
- Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in
Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of
California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from
Yale University. He has done postdoctoral research at the
University of California at Berkeley, and has taught
biology at California State University in Hayward. Dr.
Wells has published articles in both scientific and
religious journals including Development, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems,
American Presbyterians, and Patristic and Byzantine
Review. He is also author of the book Charles Hodge's
Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988). He is a
Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Dr. Wells's
work in developmental biology poses a serious challenge
to the neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations can
create new body plans and organisms.
What people are saying about Icons of Evolution
Reviews of the Book:
Reviews of the textbook evaluations:
-
- Biology texts, state teaching policies criticized,
defended Science groups downgrade courses for uncorrected
errors, confusion By: Larry Witham The Washington Times
September 10, 2000
-
- "The scientific leaders tell us that science is the
search for the truth science cannot coexist with lies. We
all assume that textbooks contain only a few misprints
and minor factual errors. But, is that really so? The
public should be aware of how textbooks throughout our
education system misuse these icons and addressing the
issue Wells has done a great public service. ... His
arguments are easy for laymen to follow. However, the
extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism in the
diverse fields of Biology, with extensive research notes,
makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional
biologist. "Icons of Evolution" is a must-read for all
who are interested in science, and especially in the
arguments for and against Darwinism.
-
- --Paul Chien, Department of Biology, University of
San Francisco
-
- Jonathan Wells has done us all, the scientific
community, educators, and the wider public, a great
service. In "Icons of Evolution" he has brilliantly
exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have
persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological
origins for many decades, in spite of contrary evidence.
These claims have been so often repeated that they seem
unassailable, that is, until one reads Wells's book.
-
- --Dean H. Kenyon, Professor of Biology, San Francisco
State University
-
- "Jonathan Wells demonstrates with stunning clarity
that the textbook examples Darwinists themselves chose as
the pillars of their theory are all false or misleading.
What does this imply about their scientific standards?
Why should anyone now believe any of their other
examples?"
-
- --Michael J. Behe, Professor Biological Sciences,
Lehigh University, Pennsylvania
-
- "This is one of the most important books ever written
about the evolution controversy. It shows how devotion to
the ideology of Darwinism has led to textbooks which are
full of misinformation."
-
- --Phillip E. Johnson, professor of law, UC Berkeley,
author of "The Wedge of Truth"
-
-
QUOTABLE QUOTES
-
- Philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his book, The Last Word
(Oxford University Press, 1997) talks about what he calls
"the fear of religion itself." He writes, "I speak from
experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I
want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact
that some of the most intelligent and well-informed
people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that
I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm
right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I
don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe
to be like that." In his view, this fear may be
"responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism
of our time." (p. 130)
-
-
IMPORTANT!! Do not forget to visit the index of documents
in PDF format for Acrobat Reader, where you will find
interesting documents ready to print.
-
- http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/pdf.html#ingles
-
-
S E D I N
- Servicio Evangélico de Documentación e
Información
- Servei Evangèlic de Documentació i
Informació
- Apartat 126
- 17244 CASSA DE LA SELVA
- (Girona) ESPAÑA
- http://www.sedin.org
- mailto:info@sedin.org
-
-
SEDIN is a Registered Non-Profit Association - Justice
Department of the Government of Catalonia - with the
stated purposes of spreading the Gospel (Evangelism),
defending the faith (Apologetics) and building up the
Church of God (Edification)
|
Index:
Index of
Bulletins
Main
page
General
English Index
The
Creation/Evolution
Controversy
Molecular
Machines
Museum
PDF Documents
(classified by themes)
|
