In the past, I have done refutations of the asinine, childish propaganda published by long-time liar for Jeebus, Marvin Olasky. However, I recently found an old Cretinist article that is set in the future, 2025, where the fake science of creationism (or "Intelligent Design") has supplanted the truth of evolution. Of course, the entire article, written by some loser named Jonathan Wells, is just childish day-dreaming, that lies, distorts facts, makes bare assertions, and fails to even attempt addressing the research supporting evolution--of course--but, since I enjoy exposing creationist fuck-buckets for the walking stereotypes they are, let's proceed, shall we?
IN 1973, GENETICIST THEODOSIUS Dobzhansky wrote: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." By "evolution," he meant the synthesis of Charles Darwin's 19th-century theory that all living things have descended from a common ancestor through natural selection and random variations, and the 20th-century theory that new variations are produced by mutations in DNA.
Sorry, "random" variations? Evolution is, first and foremost, an adaptation to the environment. However, some traits are not as useful as others, and some mutations are harmful. This is where natural selection kicks in, which is basically just describing the law of averages, since the fittest organism in that environment will survive and pass on it's genes. Darwin lived in an era when DNA was unknown, as was cellular mechanism. However, he understood traits well enough, and since traits are carried in genes, your pathetic and dishonest attempt to try and divide past and present versions of the theory into completely separate ideas is noted and laughed at. *laughs at it*
"By 2000, the biological sciences had become almost totally dominated by this view. Millions of students were taught that Darwinian evolution was a simple fact, like gravity. Oxford professor Richard Dawkins even proclaimed that anyone who doubted it must be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
Since, by this point, we have observed evolution not only in the lab, but in nature as well, Mr. Dawkins was right, as usual.
"Surprising though it may seem, Darwinism did not collapse because it was disproved by new evidence. (As we shall see, the evidence never really fit it anyway.)"
Hey, I'm looking forward to it. I'm sure you'll even have a better explanation for the changes in the fossil record than any of those evil scientists--uh, "Darwinists".
"Instead, evolutionary theory was knocked off its pedestal by three developments in the first decade of this century—developments centered in the United States, but worldwide in scope. Those developments were: (1) the widespread adoption of a "teach the controversy" approach in education, (2) a growing public awareness of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and (3) the rise of the more fruitful "theory of intelligent design.""
*ah-choo!* Oh, sorry, don't mind me; I'm allergic to bullshit. Intelligent Design is not a theory. It has no central, observable, testable mechanism, and has no explanation for the obvious adaptation in the fossil record, apart from saying Goddidit (which doesn't count). So on the two main criteria that must be passed in order for an idea to be considered a scientific theory, ID[iocy] dismally fails both.
"The first development was a reaction to late 20th-century efforts by dogmatic Darwinists to make evolutionary theory the exclusive framework for biology curricula in American public schools. Biology classrooms became platforms for indoctrinating students in Darwinism and its underlying philosophy of naturalism—the anti-religious view that nature is all there is and God is an illusion."
Here, we see the ethical and intellectual inferiority of the creationist exposed. Naturalism has never claimed that God doesn't exist; it simply exhibits intellectual curiosity, intelligence, and integrity of a type that creationists are incapable of understanding. One cannot objectively prove the existence of gods, including the mass murdering tyrant of Hebrew mythology. Such matters are unfalsifiable, and fall outside the boundaries of science. Therefore, science doesn't address them or waste time since nothing can be proven or disproven. Likewise, naturalism has never said that nature is all there is; i.e., the supernatural does not exist. It simply focuses on the natural world, which is the only observable and testable portion of reality. Materialism is the philosophy that dismisses the possibility of the supernatural. Of course, lying over such definitions holds no barriers for people like Mr. Wells; who needs honesty when you can just redefine words you don't like?
"In the ensuing public backlash, some people demanded that evolution be removed from the curriculum entirely. A larger number of people, however, favored a "teach the controversy" approach that presented students with the evidence against evolutionary theory as well as the evidence for it."
He admits there is evidence for evolution just two paragraphs after saying that evolution does not fit the evidence. And yet, if evolution does not fit, how can there be evidence for it?
"The U.S. Congress implicitly endorsed this approach in its No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A report accompanying the legislation stated that students should learn "to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science," and that students should "understand the full range of scientific views that exist" with regard to biological evolution. Despite loud protests and threats of lawsuits from the Darwinists, hundreds of state and local school boards across America had adopted a "teach the controversy" approach by 2005."
And "Intelligent Design" was found lacking evidence, full of holes, and reliant on personal interpretation. That's why it can't pass peer review.
"In the second major development, students who were free to examine the evidence for and against evolution quickly realized that the former was surprisingly thin."
How thin? Why, as thin as the geological column.
"Although Darwinists had long boasted about having "overwhelming evidence" for their view, it turned out that they had no good evidence for the theory's principal claim: that species originate through random mutation and natural selection."
Why even bother with  at this point? It's not like this retard cares. None of 'em do. Never mind the fact that evolution provides the only viable explanation for the fossil record, where all species that have ever existed appear, and then die out. The ID(iot) alternative? Goddidit.
"Bacteria were the best place to look for such evidence, because they reproduce quickly, their DNA can be easily mutated, and they can be subjected to strong selection in the laboratory. Yet bacteria had been intensively studied throughout the 20th century, and bacteriologists had never observed the formation of a new species."
Has anyone ever told you what a lying piece of shit you are? Now go sit on the Dunce stool with Mr. Olasky.
"If there was no good evidence that a Darwinian mechanism could produce new species, still less was there any evidence that a Darwinian mechanism could produce complex organs or new anatomical features."
But alas, as much as deluded Anti-Darwinists tried, their poor little fantasy realm just wasn't strong to combat the truth that there was evidence for these things. Example: this. Notice, if you will, the vestigial eyes that are no longer needed, being blind and useless, and yet they are still there (since, as scientists know, they simply haven't been selected out yet). One wonders why is is "intelligent design" to leave useless dead eyes on a creature whose very skin has grown over them. But I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent explanation from the ID[iot] crowd.
"Darwinists discounted the problem by arguing that evolution was too slow to observe, but this didn't change the fact that they lacked empirical confirmation for their theory."
Or appeared so, to ignorant Cretinists who had never taken a class on the subject or studied geology (hint; somebody did). But what am I saying? Of course we can't expect the Intelligent Design crowd to suggest a testable, observable alternate mechanism for the fossil record. Who could possibly expect such an intelligent group of people to actually engage in intelligent discourse; it's not like the word "intelligence" is part of their title, right? Right?
"Of course, there was plenty of evidence for minor changes in existing species—but nobody had ever doubted that existing species can change over time."
Which is evolution. *trollface*
"Domestic breeders had been observing such changes—and even producing them—for centuries. Unfortunately, this was not the sort of evidence that evolution needed. After all, the main point of evolutionary theory was not how selection and mutation could change existing species, but how that mechanism could produce new species-indeed, all species after the first-as well as new organs and new body plans. That's why Darwin titled his magnum opus The Origin of Species, not How Existing Species Change over Time."
Indeed; which is why Darwinists simply pointed to the emergence of new species, like this new species of mouse, blasting anti-evolution tripe into oblivion, except in the minds of the uber-deluded, who still insist that the debate is not over (even though they lost it a hundred years ago).
"A growing number of people realized that the "overwhelming evidence" for evolutionary theory was a myth."
A big chunk of creationist time is spent fantasizing about an alternate reality where everything that is true about creationism is now true about evolution, as evidenced by the sentence above.
"It didn't help the Darwinists when it became public knowledge that they had faked some of their most widely advertised evidence. For example, they had distorted drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar than they really are (in order to convince students that they had descended from a common ancestor), and they had staged photos showing peppered moths on tree trunks where they don't normally rest (in order to persuade students of the power of natural selection)."
What's funny is that these drawings, contrary to the lies of creationists, were not faked, but exaggerated by Ernst Haeckel.
In order to support his theory of Recapitulation ("—is a biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors."--Wikipedia), Haeckel deliberately exaggerated the similarities between different embryos. However, he certainly did not fabricate the similarities entirely. While his theory has been refuted in biology, different embryos do have certain similarities to each other. And of course, it's fascinating that Mr. Wells follows the typical ID[iot] approach to evidence for evolution, focusing his attacks on weak targets that aren't even central to the proof claims of the theory. Why doesn't he mention the Geologic Time Scale and transitional fossils like Tiktaalik? Eh? Or "macro"-evolution being observed by scientists right now?
"In the first few years of this century, the cultural dominance of Darwinism was so strong, especially in academia, that critics were slow to speak up. By 2009, however, when Darwin's followers had hoped to stage a triumphal celebration of their leader's 200th birthday, millions of people were laughing at the emperor with no clothes."
Yeah, I remember that. It almost made me pity the creationists receiving the brunt of the scorn. Almost...
"The third and perhaps most decisive development was a series of breakthroughs in biology and medicine inspired by the new theory of intelligent design."
"Everyone, even the Darwinists, agreed that living things look as though they were designed."
"Darwinists insisted that this was merely an illusion, produced by the combined action of random mutation and natural selection; but design theorists argued that the design was real."
Actually, it's been proven most gracefully by Richard Lenski and his team that organisms can mutate astonishing traits with no interference whatsoever from intelligent designers. Furthermore, thus far, Mr. Wells has failed to provide any logical argument against natural selection. He speaks as if his religious fantasy has been proven, and yet it has not; 99.999% of the scientific community accept evolution. Thus far, proponents of ID have yet to even get one paper past peer review.
"For years the controversy remained largely philosophical; then, in the first decade of this century, a few researchers began applying intelligent-design theory to solving specific biological problems"
This is gonna be good, I can tell!
"One of these was the function of so-called "junk DNA." From a Darwinian perspective, "genes" were thought to determine all the important characteristics of an organism, and gene mutations were thought to provide the raw materials for evolution. When molecular biologists in the third quarter of the 20th century discovered that certain regions of DNA encode proteins that determine some of the characteristics of living cells, and equated these with "genes," Darwinists assumed that their theory was complete. They even proclaimed DNA to be "the secret of life.""
"Yet molecular biologists learned in the 1970s that less than 5 percent of human DNA encodes proteins. Darwinists immediately declared the other 95 percent "junk"-molecular accidents that had accumulated in the course of evolution."
. And why are you arguing from out of the 70s? I thought this was supposed to be a put-down of ToE, not a history lesson.
"Since few researchers were motivated (or funded) to investigate garbage, most human DNA was neglected for decades. Although biologists occasionally stumbled on functions for isolated pieces of "junk," they began to make real progress only after realizing that the DNA in an intelligently designed organism is unlikely to be 95 percent useless."
Citation... oh bugger it. This guy is just lying now. How stupid are the readers of WORLD anyway? Do they really swallow this shit without any sources whatsoever? Really? So much for "intelligent" design. Who says that research scientists making break-throughs in genetics were convinced that DNA was intelligently created? I doubt it; I think if that were the case, our friend Wells would have quoted them, or given a source, or better yet, both.
"The intensive research on non-coding regions of human DNA that followed soon led to several medically important discoveries."
So how does this suggest creation? All you're doing is interpreting the evidence to suit your views; pretty dishonest, not to mention unimpressive.
"Another insight from intelligent-design theory advanced our understanding of embryo development. From a Darwinian perspective, all the information needed for new features acquired in the course of evolution came from genetic mutations. This implied that all essential biological information was encoded in DNA. In contrast, intelligent-design theory implied that organisms are irreducibly complex systems in which DNA contains only part of the essential information. Although a few biologists had been arguing against DNA reductionism for decades, biologists guided by intelligent-design theory in 2010 discovered the true nature of the information that guides embryo development."
Citation. Needed. Badly. As we already saw earlier, Irreducible Complexity has been debunked. It's actually kind of funny how all of this hinges on the discovery made by Professor Lenski and Co. When have biologists ever been guided by ID? When has any research been done supporting it? If DNA only has part of the code, where is the rest?
"All three of these developments-teaching the controversy, educating people about the lack of evidence for evolutionary theory, and using intelligent-design theory to make progress in biomedical research-were bitterly resisted by Darwinists in the first decade of this century."