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. Who is hiding?
That's not an answer.
I think j777 has a random phrase generator.
I think I am delaing with a not-very-well-written 'bot.
It's a miracle! I can see Jean Stapleton! (Oh, Aaaawchie!!!)
You haven't and can't prove a word of your incoherent response. Does your mommy know you're using the computer?
It is a debate of science vs. religion. The worldviews are entirely different, as is the evidence vs. the belief.
That does not make for a very productive debate.
I defy you to find ONE post on this thread from you that directly answers the posts to you.
"Oh come on" "that is silly" etc. are NOT responses.
Read more carefully
YOU SAID:
You were the one who said scientists refuse to debate with non-scientists.
Ahh. I love those who read too fast or loosely. You did not read the rest of the post!
My point is that evo scientists have in the past INSISTED that creationist scientists (both using the same methods), are in evos opinion NOT scientists...simply because they do not believe in evo.
Hence, many evo scientists refuse to debate creationist scientists in public. They illogic the debate away.
Not me dude!!! Of course they (you) would debate me. I am easy prey as I am not well studied, nor see that as my life's vocation.
YOU SAID:
My concern is that you and people like you will poison the minds of our youth.
Uh oh! You better find me and censor me, tape my mouth shut, tar and feather me...kill me! That is a real logical move....NOT! Socialist!!!!!!!!
Since you are not a scientist, what on gives you the notion that you are qualified to judge the evidence relating to evolution?
An can the debate of "scientific socialism", "technocracy" etc be limited to those who accept the pre-suppositions of those disciplines?
And can the debate over morality and good vs evil be limited to clergemen and those with theological degrees?
This last question illustrates exactly what is not scientific about the modern scientific community. The modern scientific community has is hierarchy of bishops, priests and seminarians. Any seminarian who disagrees with the "exclusive role" of the clergy is not a legitimate seminarian and will not be allowed to become a priest in the church of modern science.
This is true, not just of the topic of evolution, but also of many other politically correct topics from global warming to funding of the National Institutes of Health. The priesthood rules.
SO...take your science back to your root?
What are your presuppositions?
In a word...Secular Humanism...a religion. That is your root.
So...it is religion vs religion...
Bad logic, false dichotomy.
If we were sitting at a table, "oh come on" and "don't be silly" would be responses followed by more.
But you cannot argue with silliness, as its goal many times is to simply frustrate and obfuscate.
When one starts to throw words like myth at people, they get up from the table and leave....which is what you want.
Ahh -- "creation scientist" is like "physics alchemist."
There is no such thing as "creation science."
Creation is by definition mythology. You objected to my earler use of the word, but you don't have a substitute.
Any debate founded in mythology belongs in the mythology realm (or theology if that is easier to tale).
NOT science.
So from that degree, yes, it is impossible to have a debate with someone who can't properly address the issue at hand.
What would be the point? At some point the so-called "creation scientist" just whips out God and says "{poof} -- you can't argue against God."
Well said, well said indeed.
Yes...those high steeples of the ivory white tower...so they may look down upon the great unwashed.
Sorry, not correct. Please note the definitions below, with special attention to "Religion."
These definitions are from a google search, with additions from this thread:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Guess she doesn't pass the Turing test.
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.OK, I have a request for all you creationists here who insist that there aren't any "missing links" or transitional fossils between ancient apes & modern man: Go back up to post 84. Look at fossils A and N. These are modern chimpanzee and modern human, respectively.[GLDNGUN] That, my friends, is the fart in the Darwinian-Evolution Religion. It stinks and it's ruining the whole charade, but all of the blindly faithful try their best to pretend it's not there.
[Scourge of God] Don’t see anyone disputing those missing fossil records.
[firebrand] For anyone to assume the so-called fossil record can tell us anything on this issue is the ultimate in hubris.
[GLDNGUN] Thanks. I'll have to use that next time a Darweiner tries to use a fossil as evidence. :-)
[JCEccles] ...and the fossil record lacks evidence of even the tiniest complement of transitory life forms that Darwin himself said his theory required.
Now, I want you to tell me precisely which of the other fossils: B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M are. Since you deny that there are any transitional fossils, please check one of these boxes:
1. [_] Just an old chimpanzee or other ape, or
2. [_] Just an old human
Can you do it?
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.