The So-called "Tree of Life" has been debunked

[Immortal4life]

Through research and uncovering facts, it becomes clear that Evolution is a theory in crisis. We know that research in genetics does not support the idea that mutations can lead to new species, the fossil record is missing completely the so-called transitional forms that Darwin predicted, etc. etc.

 

But people have consistently come back with one claim....they always say "we know how different species evolved because we have constructed a so-called Tree of Life, which shows the course of evolution over millions of years."

 

In 2009 the "Tree of Life" was disproven. It has now been completely thrown out, thrown in the trash. Many species scientists believed evolved from each other by branching off through random mutations and the so-called "natural selection", have been proven to have been developing and even mixing genes in ways other than how people normally think of, definitely not evolving. Mixing of genes and genetic drift can never fully explain how evolution could happen anyways, since simply mixing of genes does not create new genes, or new species.

 

The Tree of Life was really a major piece of alleged evidence Evolution had going for it, and now its totally finished, completely done. This is like another nail in the coffin, and proof that this is a theory in crisis more than any other theory out there. I am aware hardcore Darwinists will never give up on their favorite theory, and they will claim things like "we just have to create a NEW Tree of Life, or find a new way to explain evolution", "we cant explain evolution at all, but it still must be true!" but come on, this is a theory in crisis and the Tree of Life was one of the main foundations of the whole theory.

 

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life-

For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

 

It started well. The first molecules to be sequenced were RNAs found in ribosomes, the cell's protein-making machines. In the 1970s, by comparing RNA sequences from various plants, animals and microorganisms, molecular biologists began to sketch the outlines of a tree. This led to, among other successes, the unexpected discovery of a previously unknown major branch of the tree of life, the unicellular archaea, which were previously thought to be bacteria.

 

By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the opposite happened.

 

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.

 

Which was correct? Paradoxically, both - but only if the main premise underpinning Darwin's tree was incorrect. Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being closely related in some respects but not others.

 

We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances - in a process called horizontal gene transfer (HGT).

 

At first HGT was assumed to be a minor player, transferring only "optional extra" functions such as antibiotic resistance. Core biological functions such as DNA replication and protein synthesis were still thought to be passed on vertically. For a while, this allowed evolutionary biologists to accept HGT without jeopardising their precious tree of life; HGT was merely noise blurring its edges. We now know that view is wrong. "There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups," says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.

 

 

The Gaurdian- Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

 

Clearly unrelated species can exchange or mimmick each others genetic material in ways other than how people normally think of. Sharing of genetic material does not necessarily indicate 2 species are related or that one came from another.

 

Video- Evolution vs. Gene comparison

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181835/evolution_vs_gene_comparison/

This following recent article in New Scientis has a totally different conclusion on what comparing genes proves about evolution:

 

"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#more

 

Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009

Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/shilling-for-darwin-the-wildly-irresponsible-evolutionist/#comments

 

A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4)

Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more

 

A article in - Trends in Ecology and Evolution - concluded

“the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals of the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce the mammalian tree to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows.

W. W. De Jong, “Molecules remodel the mammalian tree,” - Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 13(7), pgs. 270-274 (July 7, 1998).

 

Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis

 

 

A classic evolutionist "theory" (working hypothesis, more like, since it has no actual evidence) is that species randomly mutate across generations to form new species. So you have one species, and maybe its kids have some mutation that coincidentally helps it survive, and so that line of mutant kids outlives its own predecessor species, etc.

 

The problem with this "random mutation" idea is that it has since been proven that animals change their genetics and DNA through various non-random mechanisms, that are still not understood.

 

Check this out:

 

 

 

This is a snail that has been described as "half-animal, half-plant."

 

It's a snail that has some kind of "plant stuff" growing on it, part of its actual body and not a symbiotic relationship with a sea-fungus or anything like that. The plant-like stuff actually produces chlorophyll that the snail can use as food and so sustain itself without eating anything, only using sunlight. The snail has somehow incorporated plant genes into its genetic structure. Now if genetic changes were truly all random then this would be impossible, or at least insanely, astronomically improbable, that a random mutation would exactly mirror genes that have simultaneously developed in plant life over millions of years. The scientists who are studying this now realize that genes can be transferred across species, but no definitive mechanism has been discovered for how this can occur.

 

Surprising Sea Slug Is Half-plant, Half-animal

 

A green sea slug appears to be part animal, part plant. It's the first critter discovered to produce the plant pigment chlorophyll.

 

The sneaky slugs seem to have stolen the genes that enable this skill from algae that they've eaten. With their contraband genes, the slugs can carry out photosynthesis — the process plants use to convert sunlight into energy.

 

"They can make their energy-containing molecules without having to eat anything," said Sidney Pierce, a biologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa. ...

 

"This is the first time that multicellar animals have been able to produce chlorophyll," Pierce told LiveScience.

 

The sea slugs live in salt marshes in New England and Canada. In addition to burglarizing the genes needed to make the green pigment chlorophyll, the slugs also steal tiny cell parts called chloroplasts, which they use to conduct photosynthesis. The chloroplasts use the chlorophyl to convert sunlight into energy, just as plants do, eliminating the need to eat food to gain energy. ...

 

The researchers used a radioactive tracer to be sure that the slugs are actually producing the chlorophyll themselves, as opposed to just stealing the ready-made pigment from algae. In fact, the slugs incorporate the genetic material so well, they pass it on to further generations of slugs.

 

The babies of thieving slugs retain the ability to produce their own chlorophyll, though they can't carry out photosynthesis until they've eaten enough algae to steal the necessary chloroplasts, which they can't yet produce on their own.

 

The slugs accomplishment is quite a feat, and scientists aren't yet sure how the animals actually appropriate the genes they need.

 

"It certainly is possible that DNA from one species can get into another species, as these slugs have clearly shown," Pierce said. "But the mechanisms are still unknown."

 

 

The general idea of evolution may have a grain of logic to it, and it seems to make sense on the surface, but no one knows exactly how it works. Something else is definitely going on besides just random mutations and natural selection.

 

LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2QO3c9JL1A

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Nanashi]

I wonder if eastern philosophers or mystics troll christian forums.

[Immortal4life]

These ideas and issues are as relevant to eastern mytics as they are to western religions.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ShaktiMama]

I wonder if eastern philosophers or mystics troll christian forums.

 

 

o.m.g I just about choked on my hot chocolate. good thing it didnt come out my nose.

[InfinityTruth]

I wonder if eastern philosophers or mystics troll christian forums.

 

lol. Agreed. I smell either a troll, or a missionary. One or the other. Looking back at his other posts they're all similar.

Edited May 8, 2011 by InfinityTruth

[ralis]

Immortal4Life uses baseless arguments that appear to refute established theory. However, on close examination, these arguments don't sustain in a peer review process. Why? Every article he has submitted here, attempts to refute evolutionary theory, not by producing new evidence obtained by careful field research but by using emotional arguments and sweeping generalizations based on faith based mythology. His experts will never be published in peer reviewed journals and only will be found in popular magazines where naive readers will accept baseless ideology, without question.

 

None of his baseless evidence will be presented to this organization. My link

 

Thom Hartmann stated on his program 2 weeks ago, there are many right wing idealists, that have religious and political agendas. These revisionists are attempting to rewrite articles in Wikipedia, give unfavorable reviews on Amazon.com and create web sites that appear to be discussing science, when the real agenda is to convert the naive reader to another point of view. Climate change and evolution are two targeted areas that are favorable targets for these right wing extremists. It is a known fact that the Koch brothers are paying operatives to train masses of true believers to engage in these type of activities.

Edited May 8, 2011 by ralis

[Encephalon]

This is where the marching orders were first consolidated.

 

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

 

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

 

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

 

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

 

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

 

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

 

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

 

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

 

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

Phase I.

 

Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity

Phase II.

 

Publicity & Opinion-making

Phase III.

 

Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

THE WEDGE PROJECTS

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

 

Individual Research Fellowship Program

Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)

Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)

Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

 

Book Publicity

Opinion-Maker Conferences

Apologetics Seminars

Teacher Training Program

Op-ed Fellow

PBS (or other TV) Co-production

Publicity Materials / Publications

Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

 

Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences

Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training

Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

 

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

 

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

 

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

 

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

 

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

 

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

 

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

 

GOALS

Governing Goals

 

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

 

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

 

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

 

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

 

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

 

4. Significant coverage in national media:

 

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

 

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

 

7. Scientific achievements:

 

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

ACTVITIES

(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

 

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)

 

(3) Teacher training

 

(4) Academic Conferences

 

(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences

 

(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets

 

(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking

 

(8) Op-ed and popular writing

 

(9) Documentaries and other media productions

 

(10) Academic debates

 

(11) Fund Raising and Development

 

(12) General Administrative support

 

THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY

Books

 

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

 

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

 

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

 

InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.

 

McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.

 

Academic Articles

 

Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.

 

Television and Radio Appearances

 

During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."

 

Newspaper and Magazine Articles

 

The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works.

[ralis]

This is where the marching orders were first consolidated.

 

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

 

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

 

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

 

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

 

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

 

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

 

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

 

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

 

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

Phase I.

 

Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity

Phase II.

 

Publicity & Opinion-making

Phase III.

 

Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

THE WEDGE PROJECTS

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

 

Individual Research Fellowship Program

Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)

Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)

Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

 

Book Publicity

Opinion-Maker Conferences

Apologetics Seminars

Teacher Training Program

Op-ed Fellow

PBS (or other TV) Co-production

Publicity Materials / Publications

Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

 

Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences

Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training

Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

 

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

 

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

 

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

 

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

 

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

 

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

 

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

 

GOALS

Governing Goals

 

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

 

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

 

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

 

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

 

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

 

4. Significant coverage in national media:

 

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

 

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

 

7. Scientific achievements:

 

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

ACTVITIES

(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

 

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)

 

(3) Teacher training

 

(4) Academic Conferences

 

(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences

 

(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets

 

(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking

 

(8) Op-ed and popular writing

 

(9) Documentaries and other media productions

 

(10) Academic debates

 

(11) Fund Raising and Development

 

(12) General Administrative support

 

THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY

Books

 

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

 

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

 

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

 

InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.

 

McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.

 

Academic Articles

 

Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.

 

Television and Radio Appearances

 

During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."

 

Newspaper and Magazine Articles

 

The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works.

 

 

Thanks for posting this excellent article!

[Immortal4life]

Thanks for posting this excellent article!

 

Except the source cited here for the debunking of the Tree of Life, is the publication New Scientist, not the Discovery institute.

[ralis]

Except the source cited here for the debunking of the Tree of Life, is the publication New Scientist, not the Discovery institute.

 

'New Scientist' is a popular science magazine and is not a peer reviewed journal. 'Discovery Institute' is a private corp. with it's own agenda.

[ralis]

Here is another example of right wing extremism with an agenda to dismantle the public school system. I am certain the curriculum would be emphasizing intelligent design. I am certain Immortal4Life would be pleased.

 

 

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/150868/the_devos_family%3A_meet_the_super-wealthy_right-wingers_working_with_the_religious_right_to_kill_public_education/

[Immortal4life]

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

 

"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

[ralis]

 

 

 

Quotes out of context mean nothing. Here is the original article where this propaganda came from. Notice the absence of references.

 

http://www.creationresearch.net/items%20subjects/Darwin-was-wrong.php

[Immortal4life]

That is not the original source of the information on the tree of life presented in this thread.

[ralis]

That is not the original source of the information on the tree of life presented in this thread.

 

 

So far, no one here is interested in your ideological point of view! What is your agenda? All you are doing is trolling!

[Immortal4life]

The truth is that there is prejudice and a systematic attempt to silence all opposition to evolution within the Academic community.

 

When mainstream science, and yes peer reviewed research, debunking evolution comes to light, it is a positive and beautiful thing.

 

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Jetsun]

I'm starting to understand why people like Dawkins and Hitchens take such an aggressive approach, I appreciate then more now I see what they are up against. There is an element of truth in the premise that things are over materialistic, but a regression back to old dogmatic religious views is obviously not the solution so I doubt these ID propagandists will ever get anywhere.

[Marblehead]

I'm surprised that I have not posted to this thread.

 

But then, Y'all know my thoughts on the subject so what value would there be in my saying anything?

[Apech]

I'm surprised that I have not posted to this thread.

 

But then, Y'all know my thoughts on the subject so what value would there be in my saying anything?

 

Your thoughts might have evolved???

[Marblehead]

Your thoughts might have evolved???

 

Oh, feel sure that if I have further awakenings, awarenesses, or evolved thoughts I will immediately share them with all my friends here.

 

Hey, afterall, what I realize might be only a delusion and by sharing someone would bring this to my attention.

 

The evolution of thought! What an interesting concept.

 

Would that look a little like a tree in growth?

 

Funny. We can't go back and make the tree grow differently. All we can do is help it grow further. (But too much fertilizer will kill it.)

[ralis]

The truth is that there is prejudice and a systematic attempt to silence all opposition to evolution within the Academic community.

 

When mainstream science, and yes peer reviewed research, debunking evolution comes to light, it is a positive and beautiful thing.

 

 

Anti evolutionists have produced no evidence to the contrary and by presenting irrelevant minutia as a new theory, begs the question.

 

These arguments are no different from the edicts made by the church declaring that the sun revolved around a flat earth. We all know how that turned out.

Edited May 8, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

The truth is that there is prejudice and a systematic attempt to silence all opposition to evolution within the Academic community.

 

When mainstream science, and yes peer reviewed research, debunking evolution comes to light, it is a positive and beautiful thing.

 

 

Your statement implies that evolutionary theory has been debunked. Only in your narrow belief system which is one of extreme polarization.

Edited May 8, 2011 by ralis

[Apech]

Oh, feel sure that if I have further awakenings, awarenesses, or evolved thoughts I will immediately share them with all my friends here.

 

Hey, afterall, what I realize might be only a delusion and by sharing someone would bring this to my attention.

 

The evolution of thought! What an interesting concept.

 

Would that look a little like a tree in growth?

 

Funny. We can't go back and make the tree grow differently. All we can do is help it grow further. (But too much fertilizer will kill it.)

 

Maybe like a tree. More and more subtle like the branches and new leaves, more and more profound like the roots.

 

If there is one criticism of the biologists it is that they do become narrow minded and although science is supposed to be based on pure empiricism they refute ideas that don't fit too easily. That's why new scientific theories have such a hard time initially until they become accepted.

 

Evolution makes logical and intuitive sense to me and is in no way anti-spiritual (unless you have a naive concept of spirit/God whatever). But what it lacks is a theory of consciousness. Where does that come in and how does will or decision making by individuals play a part.

 

I am absolutely sure that in the future this area of science will give us all a few surprises - and look forward to them. I don't want a harsh monolithic orthodoxy, I want open, inspiring and startling truth. And I mean this from both sides, science and religion.

[Marblehead]

Agree. When we become specialists we become narrow-minded. That comes with the territory. Sad? Sure it is. But if we want to become a master of our art we must exclude all interferrence.

 

The tree of life. Yes, that includes the roots. We Taoists are told that we should return to our roots - figuratively, not literally.

 

And just bacause a tree has branches that you don't want to see does not invalidate the concept.

 

Ah! The nature of life! Ain't it grand?!?

[Immortal4life]

I'm starting to understand why people like Dawkins and Hitchens take such an aggressive approach, I appreciate then more now I see what they are up against.

 

Actually much of my interest in this subject came from interacting with Richard Dawkin fanboys on discussion forums. Many of the things I say, are actually direct responses to and come backs to the things that are popular amognst fans od Dawkins.

 

I am actually providing a balance to people like Hitchens and Dawkins. Before they got popular I wasn't as interested in Evolution because no one really talked about it much before a few years ago.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life