Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[joyspring777]

Of the three intellectual pillars of modern liberalism -- Marx, Darwin, and Freud -- only one is still standing. Marx fell in 1989, along with the Berlin Wall. Freud's demise is more difficult to date; suffice it to say that, by the end of the century, no one, with the possible exception of Woody Allen, took him seriously any more. Darwin, I predict, will suffer a similar fate within the next ten to fifteen years.

That may seem counterintuitive in light of recent legal and public-relations setbacks suffered by critics of Darwinism -- notably a federal judge's decision forbidding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a term for one aspect of the anti-Darwin critique) in Dover, Pa., public schools. But it is a sign of weakness, not strength, when one side in an ostensibly scientific debate resorts to silencing the other. If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?

No, Darwinists are running scared. Even their attempts to declare victory on scientific grounds betray more than a whiff of desperation. Case in point: the year-end edition of the journal Science hailing "evolution in action" as its "Breakthrough of the Year." Among the "dramatic discoveries" said by the magazine to make 2005 "a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," none in itself demonstrates whether evolution proceeds, and they only shed light on how if you first assume that it does.

Here, for instance, is Science editor Donald Kennedy describing "one of my favorites" in this evidentiary explosion: "the European blackcap, a species of warbler that spends the winter in two separate places but then reunites to breed, with birds selecting mates from those who shared the same wintering ground. Assortative mating of this kind can produce a gradual differentiation of the two populations. Biologists have shown that new species can arise because of geographic barriers that separate subpopulations, but the divergent evolution shown in this case could result in new species arising within a single range."

If it seems that the bare facts adduced here don't quite amount to a clear instance of "evolution in action," that's because they don't. At best, they demonstrate what's known as "microevolution" -- modification within a species -- which no anti-Darwinist disputes. What is disputed is "macroevolution," the change of one species into another, which is the central claim of Darwinism. If macroevolution occurs, the "assortative mating" of the European blackcap might help to explain how it works, but it does nothing to prove that it does occur.

The fact is,nothing proves that macroevolution occurs, or ever has occurred. And, at a certain point, the absence of proof, especially where it ought to be abundant, constitutes, if not positive disproof, at least strong reasons for doubt. According to Darwin's theory of descent through gradual modification (by way of random mutation and natural selection), the fossil record should contain near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different "transitional" forms, and even greater numbers of evolutionary dead ends. Despite the best efforts of archaeologists, not even a hint of that has materialized in the fossil record. Instead, what we should not expect to find, according to Darwin's theory, is what we do find: the sudden appearance of innumerable distinct species, as we have in the so-called Cambrian Explosion.

Needless to say, a debate like this can't be settled in the space of a column. Neither, however, can it be settled by shutting out the other side. Darwinists, of course, would have us believe that there is no other side, only a bunch of anti-science religious fanatics who don't deserve to be heard. That approach can succeed, but not for long. As I say, I give them fifteen years, tops.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Why don't those museums allow displays to argue the special creationist view?

Aside from the Old Testament, what exactly would be in this display?

[Coyoteman]

grasping or gasping...your choice...to support what they could not find...

Here is one of the missing links for you. The chart at the bottom shows the position of this species (in about the center).

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733 Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406- A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[js1138]

Actually, the Catholic church has learned over the centuries the futility of pitting fallible human interpretation of scripture over and above the truth that is accessible to everyone through science.

No more witches and heretics tortured an burned. No more embarrassing admissions of error. It is, after all, the prideful interpretation that is the source of the error.

[joyspring777]

Oh Come on!

[freedumb2003]

That is a GREAT graphic.

It is sooooo stolen!

[joyspring777]

I simply don't agree with your assertions.

I am a former catholic...gladly rescued from the depths of mysticism and mesmerism.

[VadeRetro]

Evangelical Christianity in its non-denominational forms for the most part. Catholicism will not make up its mind because it cannot afford to alienate any more of its verbal adherants. Mainline protestants like Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. have generally surrendered on all fronts to coexist or make peace with secular humanism. It is the non-denominational evangelicals and reformed churches that are key supporters of special creation.

But it's a scientific controversy, really. Teach the controversy!

[trashcanbred]

Thank you for the information.

[joyspring777]

Here is one source:

Just one for now:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[stands2reason]

Is Gramsci dead yet? I want to fertilise the grass on his grave.Then I can make a twofer trip for him and Derrida.

[freedumb2003]

What I really have great respect for (sarcasm here), are those evolution believing scientists who REFUSE to debate non-scientists.

I dunno. Should mathematicians debate non-mathematicians? MDs should debate non-MDs?

Hence, the Evolutionary scientist defines scientist as, not someone with a degree in one of the sciences from a respected university, but simply one of the same who believes in evolution too.

If a person can enter the debate with a scientific understanding of things like "theory," "proof," "axiom," the Scientific Method, etc. then they are welcome to debate.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a Creo that has that understanding.

[VadeRetro]

You're going to put a website in a museum display?

[js1138]

Do you deny that the church was wrong about Copernicus and Galileo, and corect to admit its error?

[joyspring777]

You, my friend, need to explore life in different circles of influence.

Birds of a feather....

[freedumb2003]

Why don't those museums allow displays to argue the special creationist view?

What do you want to display? And if you display stuff about the Biblical Creatist Myth, you have to add the Hindu one, the Indian one (Brahma from an egg), etc. etc.

Of course, the museum would then have to explain why it is putting mythology along side science, whouch would be pretty tough.

[JCEccles]

A few materialist scientists themselves sowed doubt in the wind blown field of Darwinist faith claims. Among them: directed panspermia (e.g. Francis Crick), punctuated equilibrium (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould), and the anthropic principle (e.g. Frank Tipler). All of these claims have been put forward because materialist Darwinism utterly failed to account for the origins of life on earth in the few billion years available for the task and the fossil record lacks evidence of even the tiniest complement of transitory life forms that Darwin himself said his theory required.

Darwinism has devolved into a set of unintentionally funny often contradictory surmisings of why certain life forms have certain features, rank speculation fobbed off as serious science. It is no more scientific than astrology.

It cannot stand on its own in the marketplace of ideas which is why its faithful are so quick to invoke the power of the state to keep honest critics silent.

[freedumb2003]

Just what I dislike...a person with no seriousness that makes debate impossible.

Dblshot's myth is just as scientifically valid as yours.

[tallhappy]

Physical sciences are amenable to direct observation and experimentation. Thus there are well defined laws and formulations that have been established over time. Gravity, electricty and atomic properties are examples.

Evolutionary paths and evolutionary relationships between organisms are juch more problematic and are not amenable to the same sort of direct observation as simpler physical subjects. It remains much more hypothetical compared with known properties of elements.

[freedumb2003]

Quite a non-sequituer there.

Or is it ad hominem? With you Creos it is hard to tell sometimes.

[joyspring777]

Not at all. The Catholic church at the time was quite corrupt.

IMHO I look at the early vestiges (following Constantine) of the Catholic church as the Roman Empire and the Caesars reinvented to manage the masses.

Have you ever read Halley's Bible Handbook sections on the Popes?

These men had nothing to do with God. They were tyrants, dictators, small-minded killers of those who disagreed with them. They bought and sold positions in the "church", fathered children repeatedly out of wedlock, etc. etc. etc.

What happened in the Boston diocese did not surprise me, but it does horrify me that it was allowed to go on unreported.

These men should NOT name the name of Jesus Christ. They, in the words of Paul the Apostle, preach another Jesus...not the one from Nazareth who died and rose again!