In my reading of articles from the Discovery Institute, I kept reading that Darwin and his idea of evolution were wrong. Especially in the article, "Why Darwinism is False," by Jonathan Wells. This article is about a book written by Jerry Coyne called "Why Evolution is True." In this book Coyne gives evidence to why he believes that evolution and Darwinism, is in fact true. Wells mostly uses quotes from Coyne's book and then gives his evidence to why it is false.
A 'truth' that the Discovery Institute is arguing is that evolution doesnt exist. I think that most of this truth is obvious in the language that they use. Wells quotes Coyne about DNA and how it plays a role in evolution. Wells then blatantly says "But Coyne is dead wrong." This, to me, is very telling. He just rejects Coyne and then goes on to explain that what he thinks about DNA is the actual truth. When there are two directly opposing views it is pretty hard to determine what is actually true or not. Thankfully, Wells backs up his arguments well and includes a good description of his thoughts. This definitely helps him out and solidifies the truth in his arguments.
I disagree in the sense that I don't think the main goal of the website is arguing that evolution doesn't exist (although that article might). The way I see it is the underlying point is that Darwinism should be challenged, and people should be allowed to challenge it(Academic freedom page) but do not try to disprove the things that Darwinism has successfully proven. I think encouraging people to question Darwinism, and not completely accept the theory because there are some debates on certain aspects.
ReplyDeleteI can see how to argue both sides from this blog and this comment below. It is really important to understand somenones goal when trying to interpret their truth and point behind their word. Challenging and understanding these truths or questioning what we believe is all apart of how something is proven fact or not. Something is truth until we are persuaded otherwisse. Good job!
ReplyDeleteThis dialogue helps. Annie really nails it: they want to put some sort of god (I think the familiar one) back into the world as an explanation. Normal science really IS materialist, and if you REALLY want 'god' everywhere and guiding all action, this is a major threat
ReplyDelete