You are right. I think that would be the "unintended consequence" of teaching a faith as a science... it ends up everyone will want to get into the act. For example Scientology would push its Lord Xenu theory of why mankind has mental problems....
Posted on 03/14/2006 1:37:33 PM PST by 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.
Huh?
Get outside your comfortable circle of agreeable foolishness.
Just poking a little fun at the so called scientists here......
You are right. I think that would be the "unintended consequence" of teaching a faith as a science... it ends up everyone will want to get into the act. For example Scientology would push its Lord Xenu theory of why mankind has mental problems....
I won't take your bait.
You are the first person on this strain to use the word myth on either side.
I choose to leave it there. Go argue with yourself in the mirror.
Well put!
Nope. Sorry. I won't give any assent to that statement either.
Ah. Ad hominem. Standard CRIDer backed into a corner technique.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Pure silliness does not even deserve to be read, let alone responded to.
It is one who wishes to argue for arguing sake, not for understanding or enlightenment.
Take it elsewhere.
Because you can't argue it. You can put your fingers in your ears and scream "Nya nya" until the cows come home and it butresses your position not a whit.
But I appreciate your standard CRIDer "argumentation."
bttt
Here we go...expect it any second....
that goof that asserts his belief in the spaghetti god!
This is nonsense and all of you that assert such stuff are hiding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't seem to understand the issues being discussed. Does your Mommy know you are using her computer while she is at work?
It is one who wishes to argue for arguing sake, not for understanding or enlightenment.
Whose enlightenment? Yours? So far you have shown a rudimentary grasp of insults but zero grasp of logic.
Take it elsewhere.
No.
See #130.
That is why. Not worth the time.
"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?"
Yep just like some of the people around here. Would rather see you silenced than to see it taught. They must not be as convinced of their position as they claim.
Your responses don't do anything for the posts today.
You are simply arguing for arguing sake. I won't take the bait dude! Go waste someone else's time and energy.
Remember, I said earlier, I am a well-read Bible believing Christian, not a scientist. I shall not pretend to be one.
There are several logical arguments presented to you (some implicitly, but I guess you can't see those). You have engaged none of them.
So if you want to sit there and post silliness and nonsense like a 3rd grader and basically say "because I said so" you have nothing of value to say to anyone.
if you want to sit there and post silliness and nonsense like a 3rd grader and basically say "because I said so" you have nothing of value to say to anyone
I don't believe that is what I have done.
3rd grader? Hmmm. I am really struck by your strength of logic and mind. You really have the argument won!
You were the one who said scientists refuse to debate with non-scientists. When I directly refuted you, your responses are ad hominem attacks and non-sequiteurs.
By your own admission you are not qualified to have an opinion on this technical topic.
My concern is that you and people like you will poison the minds of our youth.
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.