(This is a book synopsis re-post from World News Daily website for the purpose of putting a great tool in your hands…)
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Paperback)
By: Jonathan Wells
You think you know about Darwinism and intelligent design, but did you know:
* There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism;
* Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief;
* What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods;
* Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design; *Scientists who question Darwinism are punished—by public institutions using your tax dollars. Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction.
In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin’s theory known as “Intelligent Design”—and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? Jonathan Wells reveals that, for today’s Darwinists, there may be no other choice: unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is simply unfit to survive.
Wells begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with “transitional” fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn’t produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record—such as the Cambrian explosion, in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed—directly contradict Darwin’s theory. Wells also shows how most of the other “evidence” for evolution— including textbook “icons” such as peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, Haeckel’s embryos, and the Tree of Life—has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.
Wells then turns to the theory of intelligent design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too “irreducibly complex” to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman’s language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. As Wells explains, religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin—though not in the way evolutionists claim. Wells shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine creation “must” be false—a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists’ materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence—or lack of it.
Darwin is an emperor who has no clothes— but it takes a brave man to say so. Jonathan Wells, a microbiologist with two Ph.D.s (from Berkeley and Yale), is that brave man. Most textbooks on evolution are written by Darwinists with an ideological ax to grind. Brave dissidents—qualified scientists—who try to teach or write about intelligent design are silenced and sent to the academic gulag. But fear not: Jonathan Wells is a liberator. He unmasks the truth about Darwinism— why it is wrong and what the real evidence is. He also supplies a revealing list of “Books You’re Not Supposed to Read” (as far as the Darwinists are concerned) and puts at your fingertips all the evidence you need to challenge the most closed-minded Darwinist.”
(Synopsis of video from You Tube…)
“The Role of Evolution in Biomedical Research is Highly Exaggerated
Darwinists claim that their theory is the foundation of all science. Indeed, we are often told that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of it.
In a news article last November, a Stanford biologist claimed he had been guided in his research by Darwinian evolution: “Researchers at the School of Medicine uncovered obestatin [an appetite-suppressing hormone] by using the principles of evolution to pick clues from data held in the Human Genome Project, as well as the genome sequencing projects for many other organisms, among them yeast, fruit flies and mice. ‘Darwin led us to this new hormone,’ said senior author Aaron Hsueh, an endocrinologist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology.”
The Stanford press release continued: “So why does Darwin’s theory deserve some credit? Hsueh explained that before he and his colleagues started the project, they used the genome projects’ information to create a database of GPCRs that grouped them according to their evolutionary relatedness.”
The actual report in Science (310 : 996) was more subdued: “The discovery of amidated obestatin and its cognate receptor underscores the power of comparative genomic analyses.” The article’s only reference to evolution was a speculation that two of the molecules studied “could have evolved from a common ancestor but diverged in their functions.”
According to Dr. Jonathan Wells, a Berkeley-trained molecular biologist and CSC senior fellow , what really led the researchers to their discovery was comparative genomics, a combination of comparative biology and genetics that owes nothing to Darwinism. Evolution was brought in as an afterthought.
Last year, Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote in The Scientist that he “examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Dr. Wells agrees. In his forthcoming book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006), he provides many examples in which Darwinists take credit for advances in biology and medicine that owe nothing to evolutionary theory.
Here are two brief excerpts from Wells’s book, due out later this year: “Bruce Alberts claims that Darwinism is ‘at the core of genetics.’ Yet Mendel had no need for Darwin’s hypothesis. How can Darwinism, which contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and resisted it for half a century, now be at its core? It is Darwinism that needs genetics, not genetics that needs Darwinism.”
and “Darwinists sometimes claim that their theory helps us to understand which animals are most closely related on the basis of their genetic and biochemical similarities. But this is just comparative biology at the level of genes and proteins. Linnaeus did comparative biology, yet he was a creationist who lived a century before Darwin; Owen and Agassiz did comparative biology, yet they rejected Darwin’s theory.”
So comparative genomics, like most other fields in biology, owes nothing to Darwinism. The obestatin research featured in the Stanford press release illustrates the points made by Skell and Wells.”