Do you think Darwin invented the Internet?

Do you think Darwin invented the Internet? Although Darwinist evidence, as defined by Darwinists themselves, is too weak to qualify as a theory, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973 that "nothing in biology can be understood"1 except through it. In 1999, the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, wrote: “The evolution of all living things on the planet today from their predecessors in the past is at the heart of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological fields.” Also, Douglas J. Futuyma stated in his undergraduate book Evolution that "Evolutionary biology is widely recognized for its usefulness in areas as diverse as public health, agriculture and computer science, as well as for its indispensable contributions to both the fundamentals of scientific research and its applications. Darwinists boast that nothing in biology is understood except in the light of evolutionary theory, but the truth is that agriculture and medicine owe nothing to Darwinism. The repeated claim that Darwinism is indispensable in understanding and resisting antibiotics is untrue. * Most of the major biological fields were founded either by scientists who preceded Darwin or others who opposed his theory. - Agriculture and Genetics Progress in modern agriculture was not only pre-Darwinian, but was primarily political and mechanical, and by 1800 he had transformed the system of fencing European agricultural fields from a feudal system based on a lower standard of living to a more efficient system of individual ownership, then improving the level of efficiency after the invention of sowing machines, iron ploughs and study machines, all before the publication of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" in 1859.4 Even after 1859, advances in agriculture, such as the invention of modern machinery such as good dredges and sowing equipment, as well as improvements in farmers' efficiency, had nothing to do with Darwin's theory, as the amount of crops using organic fertilizer as a soil fertilizer increased, silos prevented spoiling, and food quality improved. Agricultural tractors were invented, animal husbandry and horticulture were good by 1800, and pre-Darwinian breeders knew the importance of it. Modern agriculture has benefited from advances in the biological sciences, but this progress has largely come from genetics, which was created by the efforts of the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel; Mendel found Darwin's theory unconvincing6 as the data he collected led him to conclude that genetics involves the transfer of fixed factors that determine an organism's traits. - Glee's a genie. "Darwin's and Wallace's theory is based primarily...on such flimsy assumptions as formal anatomical nature which can hardly be called a theory...I prefer the belief in the existence of fairies to the belief in this mindless conjecture." Ernest Chain, 1972 Nobel Prize winner Darwin's view of heredity was quite different; he believed that each cell of an organism produced "breeds" that transmitted genetic traits to the next generation through a process of mixing called "universality of epigenetics", so Darwin's view that the buds could be altered by external conditions or by their use and non-use led to evolutionary change. Mendel's fixed-factor theory conflicted with Darwin's variable epistemology; Darwinists therefore ignored Mendel's theory altogether for more than three decades despite its publication from 1866, and William Pattison, one of the scientists who rediscovered Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, wrote that "the reason for the lack of interest is undoubtedly the neglect of the empirical study of the type problem that followed the general acceptance of Darwinian doctrines...the imagined question was answered, and the debate ended."8 Even after 1900, though Mendelian genetics has been proven, Darwinists rarely used Mendelian epistemology until the 1930s when they abandoned epigenetics and included Mendelianism in the "modern Darwinian synthesis", which still dominates evolutionary biology. - Medicine. Michael Dini, a professor of biology at Texas Tech University, refuses to nominate any medical school students if he does not provide a Darwinian description of the origin of the human race; for him, the theory of evolution "is the central aggregate base of biology, which includes both small (micro) and large (macro) evolution, and extends to all living things, and the person who ignores the most important theory of biology is not expected to practice a field that relies heavily on biology."9 However, modern medicine owes nothing to Darwinism for one reason: the death toll from infectious diseases began to dwindle in the West before 1859, largely due to public health measures such as sewage disposal systems and a safe water supply.10 It also includes personal hygiene, as the Hungarian obstetrician Ignac Semmelweis recounts. While working in an Austrian hospital, he noticed that the maternal mortality rate from birth fever in wards run by medical students was much higher than in wards run by midwives. He also noticed that medical students went straight from the morgue to the maternity ward without washing their hands. The current practice of vaccination also arose without any help from Darwinism; before 1800 smallpox was a serious and often fatal disease, and in the 1890s the English physician Edward Jenner discovered that he could immunize people against smallpox by vaccinating them with cowpox, a disease far less serious than smallpox. Darwinists claim that viruses, such as influenza that evolve from year to year, lack their theory of treatment, but the preparation of influenza vaccines relies on techniques in other fields such as virology, immunology, and biochemistry, not evolutionary biology. - Discovery of antibiotics In 2001, the American public radio program broadcast pro-Darwin episodes accompanied by Evolution: Triumph of an Idea, which claimed that "the resistance of bacteria to many antibiotics did not occur without a cause, but occurs according to the principles of natural selection just as bacteria with the best genes have succeeded in resisting drugs, without understanding the theory of evolution, the researcher's hope of knowing how to invent new drugs and determine how to manage them is weak."13 Microbiologists use the generic word "antibiotic" to describe a substance produced by a microbe that inhibits or kills other microbes. In this way, the English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic, penicillin. According to a cultivar of staph bacteria, it was endemic to moldy mushrooms, and there were no colonies of staph bacteria around the mold, which would likely produce moldy bacteria. - Antibiotic resistance "The concept of the struggle for survival in nature has been applied to microbial relationships, compared with the results Darwin has assigned to more sophisticated life forms, and it is likely that the ability of the microbe to produce antibiotics induces it to struggle with other microbes over space and nutrients. - Selman Waksman, 1956 Nobel Prize winner Fleming published his discovery in 1929, but it was not until 1940 that he used his anatomy to treat patients ... when chemists Howard Florey and Ernest Chen succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. Penicillin is very effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths around the world each year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waxman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was used in the treatment of tuberculosis, Waxman also saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin and did not apply antibiotics. Subsequent research supported this; bacteria in the wild live almost permanently in communities with other microbes, and also include other species, and instead of breeding as quickly as possible to compete with their neighbors in a struggle for survival, on the contrary, they usually grow slowly, coexisting peacefully in their micro-appropriate place in a stable, closed society.17 Therapeutic use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial state. Antibiotic-producing microbes must be isolated from their surrounding environment and grow in a clear environment with special nutrients. After that, the antibiotic must be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen before in nature. Nothing is natural after the patient is finally given the antibiotic. Glass greenhouses and livestock barns owned by local breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor's office. A few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment from time to time, and the number of survivors will multiply, and continue to infect that the original antibiotic was not effective against, and this can turn into a serious medical problem, and this process is not different from raising pets, but in breeding animals live desired and in resistance to antibiotics live unwanted microbes, both cases include human choice in an artificial situation, and did not include either of them originally for a new type of organism; TB bacteria are antibiotics. Some pioneers of modern biology who either preceded Darwin or opposed his theory: Andreas Vesalius (archaeology), 1514-1564 William Harvey (physiology), 1578-1657 Francesco Redi (microbiology), 1626-1697 John Ray (botany), 1627-1705 Anton van Leeuwenhoek (microbiology), 1632 – 1723 Robert Hooke (Microbiology), 1635-1703 Carolus Linnaeus (Classification), 1707 – 1778 Lazzaro Spallanzani (Genital Biology), 1729 - 1799 Caspar Friedrich Wolff, 1734-1794 Georges Cuvier (fossil science), 1769-1832 Karl Ernst von Baer, 1792 - 1876 Richard Owen (comparative biology), 1804-1892 Louis Agassiz (zoology), 1807-1873 Gregor Mendel (genetics), 1822 - 1884 They do not consult an evolutionary biologist; the two most contributing factors to the emergence of antibiotic resistance are (1) the wrong use of antibiotics and (2) the failure to isolate susceptible patients, writes Dr. Alan R. Henman in the 2003 edition of his book Principles and Practice of Pediatric Infectious Diseases: Using insufficient doses or stopping treatment prematurely, allowing some microorganisms to survive according to the 2004 edition of Gorbach, Bartlett and Blacklow's book Infectious Diseases, "Misuse of antibiotics accounts for a large proportion of emerging resistance."18 Physicians deal with the second factor by relying on time-tested isolation procedures, as well as by studying the mechanisms by which antibiotic resistance is passed from one microbe to another; mechanisms that include gene transfer between organisms rather than Darwinian regression associated with modification. Dr. Steven M. Opal and Dr. Anthony Medeiros wrote in the 2005 edition of Understanding and Practicing Infectious Disease Best Practices for Mendel and Douglas. Researchers at Johnson & Johnson have discovered a novel antibiotic, which has proven effective in initial tests against resistant TB species, using microbial and organic chemistry screening procedures, and a group of Harvard pharmacists recently synthesized new forms of tetracycline – an antibiotic discovered in the 1950s – that promise effectiveness against bacteria resistant to tetracycline itself. - Nothing in biology...! Dubzansky claimed that nothing in biology is understood except in the light of evolution, but on the contrary, most of the basic areas of modern biology were invented by scientists who lived before Darwin was born. These pioneers include the anatomist Andreas Vesalius, the physiologist William Harvey in the 16th century, and the botanist John Ray in the 17th century. Anton Van Leeuwenhoek, the founder of taxonomy in the 18th century, Carolus Linnaeus, and the founder of modern embryology in the 18th century, Caspar Frederick Wolf, also the science of ancient studies, which Darwinists now consider their own, was founded by Giorgis Cavier. Georges Cuvier) before Darwin was born. Many of the great pioneers of biology who lived to see the publication of Origin of Species have strongly opposed Darwin's theory, including embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, comparative biologist Richard Owen, and zoologist Louis Agassiz. Louis Agassiz and the geneticist Gregor Mendel.21 Darwinists sometimes claim that their theory helps us understand how closely animals relate to us. This increases the likelihood that they will be used as models for human disease and therapeutic testing. These animals are determined on the basis of human genetic and biochemical similarity. This is only comparative biology at the level of genes and proteins. In the final episode of the television series of the public radio program, the narrator states that after the 1925 field experiment with two decades of supposedly weak science, Darwin appeared to be isolated from America's public schools, and when the Soviets launched the first man-made satellite Sputnik in 1957, according to the narrator, Darwin was returned to the curriculum, and long-neglected scientific programs revived again in American classrooms. Harvard biologist Marc W. Kirschner (Chapter 3) recently told a Boston Globe reporter that over the past 100 years nearly all branches of biology have continued to progress independently of evolution except for evolutionary biology itself. The chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote that his research into antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from Darwinian evolutionary insights. Skell recently asked more than 70 famous researchers whether their work would have been different if they had considered Darwin’s theory to have been wrong, and the answers were all the same: No. The introduction of the narrative supplement may be exciting, but the acquisition of other people's achievements is theft, there must be a certain word for this particular form of cultural embezzlement, although Darwin himself was not guilty when Darwinists stole scientific achievements to which they contributed nothing, but the verb "they go to Darwin" can be appropriate; generations of breeders have run, run, mendl, Jenner and Semmelweis have run, Fleming and Florricks have done this. - What's Darwin doing about it? “I recently asked over 70 famous researchers whether their work would be different if they considered Darwin’s theory to be wrong, and the answers were all the same: No, I also examined the remarkable biological discoveries of the last century: the discovery of the double helix, the identification of the ribosome, the positioning of the genomes (the sum of the genes in the organism), the research into and response to drugs, improvements in food production, sterilization, the development of new surgeries and more. - Philip Skill (member of the National Academy of Sciences), Scientist Magazine, August 2005 - Claim what's not yours! In 1999, Vice President Al Gore told CNN that while serving in the United States Congress he had invented the Internet, and it was clear that Gore was exaggerating, because what is now known as the Internet had been in the making since the early 1960s, when Gore was still a college student. Although Gore's claim to invent the Internet holds some truth; as a 1988 senator he introduced legislation to create a fast national computer network, and Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf recently wrote that Gore was the first political leader to understand the importance of the Internet, and encourage and support its development, so although Gore should have been unwise in describing his role more modestly, Darwinists also boast ... but if nothing in biology is realized except in the light of Darwinian evolution, how were most of the major biological fields founded either by Darwin or by scientists who opposed his theory? Why did Darwinists claim that their hypothesis is indispensable in agriculture when Darwin needed farmers and farmers did not need it? How did Darwinists get away with claiming ownership of Mendelian genetics when Mendel doubted their theory and ignored his work for decades? Perhaps it’s time for night-time tuk-shu broadcasters to compare the way Darwinians get credit for biomedical science with the way Al Gore gets credit for inventing the Internet, but the comparison won’t be fair. At least, Gore has already done something about inventing the Internet. Note: The origin of the article is Chapter 7 of Jonathan Wells's book The Non-Diplomatic Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, licensed by Regnery Publishing. Margins: 1. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher 35 (March 1973), 125–29. 2. Bruce Alberts, “Preface,” Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999). Available online (April 2006) at: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/. 3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), xiv. 4. John T. Schlebecker, Whereby We Thrive: A History of American Farming, 1607–1972. (Ames, IA: The Iowa State University press, 1975), 174–87, 316–18. Percy W. Bidwell and John I. Falconer, History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620–1860 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1925; reprinted in 1973 by Augustus M. Kelley Publishers). “British Agricultural Revolution,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online (April 2006) at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution. 5. Nicholas Russell, Like Eengend’ring Like: Heredity and Animal Breeding in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 39, 216. Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (New York: D. Appleton, 1868), Volume II, Chapter XX. Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, Revised Edition (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989), 155–56, 166. 6. William Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913), 329. B. C. A. Windle, “Mendel, Mendelism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X (Robert Appleton Company, 1911). Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10180b.htm. 7. Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication , Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. 8. Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, 334. Windle, “Mendel, Mendelism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Jan Sapp, Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), Chapters 2–4. 9. Michael L. Dini, “Letters of Recommendation,” Available online (April 2006) at http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm. 10. Thomas McKeown, The Role of Medicine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979). Kenneth F. Kiple, “The History of Disease,” 16–50 in Roy Porter (editor), The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 39–40. 11. Sherwin B. Nuland, The Doctors’ Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignác Semmelweis (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003). Milton Wainwright, Miracle Cure: The Story of Penicillin and the Golden Age of Antibiotics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 11–12. 12. F. Fenner, D. A. Henderson, I. Arita, Z. Jezek, and I. D. Ladnyi, Smallpox and its Eradication (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1988). Abbas M. Behbehani, The Smallpox Story (Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas Medical Center, 1988). 13. Carl Zimmer, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 336. 14. Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2. Hare, Ronald, The Birth of Penicillin (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970). 15. E. Chain, H. W. Florey, A. D. Gardner, N. G. Heatley, M. A. Jennings, J. Orr–Ewing, and A. G. Sanders, “Penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent,” The Lancet 239:2 (August, 1940), 226–28. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapters 3 and 4. Alexander Fleming, “Banquet Speech,” December 10, 1945. Available online (April 2006) at: http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1945/fleming–speech.html. Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), 147–48. 16. Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram–Positive and Gram–Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14. 17. Joe J. Harrison, Raymond J. Turner, Lyriam L. R. Marques, and Howard Ceri, “Biofilms: A new understanding of these microbial communities is driving a revolution that may transform the science of microbiology,” American Scientist 93 (November/December 2005): 508–15. Roland F. Hirsch, “Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and the Life Sciences in the Twenty–First Century,” in William A. Dembski, Editor, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2004), 215–31. 18. Alan R. Hinman, “Perspectives on Emergence and Control of Infectious Diseases Worldwide,” 2–9 in Sarah S. Long, Larry K. Pickering, and Charles G. Prober (eds.), Principles and Practice of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Second Edition (New York: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone, 2003), 6. Larry J. Strausbaugh and Daniel B. Jernigan, “Emerging Infections,” 107–16 in Sherwood L. Gorbach, John G. Bartlett, and Neil R. Blacklow (Editors), Infectious Diseases, Third Edition (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004), 111. 19. Steven M. Opal and Antone A. Medeiros, “Molecular Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria,” 253–70 in Gerald L. Mandell, John E. Bennett, and Raphael Dolin (Editors), Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, Sixth Edition (Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone, 2005), 266. 20. Stewart T. Cole and Pedro M. Alzari, “TB—A New Target, a New Drug,” Science 307 (2005), 214–15. Chaitan Khosla and Yi Tang, “A New Route to Designer Antibiotics,” Science 308 (2005), 367–68. Malcolm MacCoss and Thomas A. Baillie, “Organic Chemistry in Drug Discovery,” Science 303 (2004), 1810–13. 21. William C. Dampier, A History of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). See also the relevant entries in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, available online (April 2006) at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. 22. Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2001), Chapter 7. Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.reviewevolution.org/. 23. Kirschner is quoted in Peter Dizikes, “Missing Links,” Boston Globe, October 23, 2005. Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/missing_links/. Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist 19:16 (August 29, 2005): 10. Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.the–scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/. 24. Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN’s “Late Edition,” March 9, 1999. Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/. Declan McCullagh, “I Created the ‘Al Gore Created the Internet’ Story,” Politech, October 17, 2000. Available online (April 2006) at: http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2000/Oct/0032.html. 25. Richard Wiggins, “Al Gore and the Creation of the Internet,” First Monday 5:10 (October 2000). Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/. John Markoff, “Sharing the Supercomputers,” New York Times, December 29, 1988. - Dr. Jonathan Wells - Translated by Ahmed Al-Shahat — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2019-12-31 (archived at the Internet Archive) http://www.braheen.com:80/mag/25-misc/98-darwin-internet