"Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could..."
- Sound of Music
Posted on 08/30/2019 9:08:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Back when the world was young, I was taught that four visionaries’ theories shaped modernity: Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Of them, only Einstein’s could be subjected to scientific scrutiny. The rest remained hypotheses, resistant to such standard scientific tests as falsifiability, replicability and predictability, but so beautiful in their comprehensiveness that the intelligentsia accepted them for what they were not: settled science.
Time has proven unkind to Freud’s and Marx’s theories, but very kind to Darwinism. Why? Shhh. If you dare to ask, you invite ridicule. Because the minute one expresses doubt about Darwin’s basic premise that all life-forms, including humans, descend from a common ancestor through the simple processes of random, heritable variation and natural selection, one admits the possibility of a counter-theory — Intelligent Design — that is considered anathema to the intelligentsia, since it implies, you know, the G-word.
David Gelernter, a conservative Yale professor of computer science, is suffering extreme ridicule and worse from colleagues for having just published an article in the Claremont Review, “Giving up Darwin.” The title is misleading, because Gelernter does not reject Darwin completely. He says there is no doubt that Darwin “successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances” through fur density or beak shape or wing style changes. It’s the big thing Gelernter now believes Darwin got wrong: humans.
There are intractable problems with Darwin’s “beautiful” theory. The most obvious is the “Cambrian explosion” of about a billion years ago wherein, during 70-odd million years, a startling variety of new organisms, and for the first time actual animals, appear in the fossil record. Where were their pre-Cambrian closely related ancestors? Nobody knows, and it isn’t the fault of fossil science, which is sophisticated and objective.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
60 years? How about 160 years. “On the Origin of Species” was published in 1859.
Well, you were wrong right off the bat.
If some evolutionist can explain how life comes from non-life that would be interesting.
If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Really? What lab experiment demonstrates common descent?
Science is fine with dark matter, string theory, 37 dimensions, and all manner of strange ideas which “explain” things which otherwise lack an explanation.
But the idea that an Intelligent Designer had a hand in creating the vast array of life we see on earth, just goes over the line? I think they just don’t like the concept of God.
Fossil sicence is sophisticated and objective.
Please.
Ancestry.com...
“… about a billion years ago wherein, during 70-odd million years, a startling variety of new …”
In science fiction an author takes a small amount of the observed science of today and creates a story about what might happen in the future.
In evolutionary science an author takes a small amount of the observed science of today and creates a theory about what happened many many years ago. Until a theory has been proven correct by observation, it is just a big story that fits the very small facts.
It takes a lot of faith to rely on carbon dating to date something one hundred million years ago.
That is, it takes a lot of Faith to create a “scientific fact” derived on 0.00005% observation.
Darwinism is more of an hypothesis and foundation for a religion than it is any kind of scientific estimate of how the various species of living things came into existence.
First Cause is never satisfactorily explained, let alone even being called upon. SOMETHING shaped clay, and accidental chains of events leading to the first spark of reproducible life forms is far-fetched beyond calculation. To have those first life forms somehow make autonomous and self-directed changes in their makeup is to imply there is a will to do so.
An outside agency had to be working to initiate and move all this cumulative change.
There are only two possibilities, there is a God or there is not a God and both scenarios are frightening. If there is a God we had better find out who He is and what He wants. If there is not a God that means we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH and no one is in charge.
"Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could..."
- Sound of Music
The title got truncated. Click the link it says “160 years …”
Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’ - Billy Preston
Not really scientific. Also, I have seen their product and their methods sometimes leave quite a bit to be desired.
Some evolutionist should explain how reproduction between male and female life forms could take place without the complete components of this complex process having evolved at exactly the same time. Without complete female and male reproductive organs and hormones, reproduction of life in every species would be impossible.
Where do you get that scientific scrutiny equals lab experiments?
Saying life came form green slime or what ever is impossible. The calculations of the odds for life self assembling exceeds the the number of atoms in the universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
