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.
Show me a "creationist scientist," with qualifications in the field and at least one peer reviewed publication.
Since most evolutionary research now is in molecular biology, that is the most relevant qualification. Don't try to pass off a pharmacist or suchlike.
Yet another unsupported statement.
Curious, why do you say Darwinism instead of evolution or ToE?
I assure you if I drop a coin to the ground, measurable scientific forces are at work, irrespective of what I believe.
You need to understand science before you can address it. Admit it, you are in over your head here.
You are assuming that based on your past experience.
The thing an evo cannot get their hands around, is that their basis is faith too based on their presuppositions that there is no God...which is secular humanism.
A faith!
If you want to talk in terms of pejoratives like myth...we both have one...you just refuse to recognize yours.
I will accept a substitute word. is there another word you would like to use?
I am proceeding based upon my own study of creationist science books.
Books on the Flood, dinosaurs, etc.
Do you have a problem with the "o" key?
What is with that?
You claimed: The thing an evo cannot get their hands around, is that their basis is faith too based on their presuppositions that there is no God...which is secular humanism."
Codswllop. You are claiming that Roman Catholics, many Protestants, most Jews, most Hindus anf most Buddhists are secular humanists.
The only religious group that shares your "creationist" beliefs is Islam.
That is absolutely untrue.
A faith!
Your particular faith has no place in a scientific discussion. I assure you the American Indian just as fervently believes that the world started from a Brahma who stayed in an egg for a year.
TToE is silent on the existance of any Supreme Being. UNderstanding TToE does not make one any sort of anything as far as religion is concerned.
If you want to talk in terms of pejoratives like myth...we both have one...you just refuse to recognize yours.
A believed myth is still a myth. Myth is not pejorative at all. It is denotative for beliefs which have no measurable proof. And it is the ONLY word we can use to categorize Creation Stories.
Come now.
If you are evolutionist, what are your beliefs in regard to the origin of the universe?
If they don't include a God, then you are making the creation the center of the universe...hence secular humanism.
I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
You have admitted that you have no science background and you read only books that support your bias.
Not a proper way to learn.
It reads like the "Wishing Will Make it So" School of Journalism.
Is it your belief that there was a global flood ca. 4300 years ago, that just prior to that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and that the earth is not too much older?
What is with that?"
Do your own research. You might learn something about respect.
You should be aware that ToE has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
There you go...a peer reviewed publication.
What is the list of publications that qualify? Aren't they all commanded by secular humanist centers of thought?
So you have added yet another qual:
1) Believe in Creation Science
2) Credentials from a University
3) Ohh...sorry...we won't publish you unless your underlying proposition supports and is evolutionist. You lose!
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.