Ni 
has just found a new gig.
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.
Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.
Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America.
Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.
The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations.
Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans. He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do all the work himself there would be no suffering.
Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his brother drove beneath the Earth.
Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten. Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on Big Turtle's back. Occasionally his anger is felt in the form of a volcano.
The Iroquois people hold a great respect for all animals. This is mirrored in their creation myth by the role the animals play. Without the animals' help the Sky Woman may have sunk to the bottom of the sea and earth may not have been created.
Hmmm...
NON SUB HOMINE SED SUB DEO ET LEGE
Not under man but under God and Law. –de Bracton
and so...what are we so surmise?
This is your acquired and stated belief in origins??
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"(22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).[emphasis added for those whose heads are stuck in the sand.]After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 90 of 139
That's much better
I must relieve you all of myself for now...
and most said...whew!!!
but could not thank God because they have no belief.
Ni has just found a new gig.
He is good at prognostication though!
"For anyone to assume the so-called fossil record can tell us anything on this issue is the ultimate in hubris."
What part of my exchange with him are you having trouble grasping?
The part where it was established that he was a "supporter of Darwinian evolution". Perhaps you could support your presumption, which you seem to have hastily jumped to?
That poster has said nothing on this thread which indicates his beliefs either way on that issue, and from looking at some of his recent posts on other threads, his view seems to be that major evolution has no occurred since the Fall, which makes him sound rather like he's leaning more towards the creationist side:
And perhaps at that point the species were immutable. The Fall of Man, with our subsequent domination of the planet, possibly assured that the age of major evolutionary changes was over. After all, Adam did name the animals. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but everything in there is meant to tell us something, usually something impossible for people to comprehend at that time. Adam's naming of the animals is possibly meant to tell us that evolution--in terms of species' changing--was over at that point.
No, we haven't. If you had any honor, you would retract your false slander. Bearing false witness is a sin.
Clue for the clueless: The majority of "Darwinistic evolutionists" in America are Christians, and it's unlikely they'd be saying anything about the "rotting corpse of Christianity".
What propagandistic reading material have you been swallowing like a Michael Moore fan which has been feeding you this horse manure? I would advise you to find some more accurate sources, ones which don't habitually lie to you in an attempt to whip up your bigotries.
> 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.
Such a statement reveals a shocking scientific illiteracy. For instance, the misuse of the word "hypothetical." And the fact that speciation and evolution have been directly observed. Sigh... another mind lost to the crappy educational system.
Behe Cross-X Day 12 http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf[emphasis added to aid the few who are still too addled to understand that one of ID's greatest promoters just admitted under oath that ID advocates haven't produced a single article in peer-reviewed journal supporting their claims that any biological system was intelligently design.]p22 line 25 Q. "And in fact there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?"
A. [Plaintiff's expert witness, Prof. Behe]: "That is correct, yes."
Yup, it sure looks like it's ID, and not Darwin's theory, which is head for the dump.
O horrible man!
Everyone does -not-.
There is nothing wrong with saying, essentially, "insufficient data".
...and realize what a mess it is, lackin any positive findings or evidence.
They will quickly realize that there are big holes in all theories and (scientifically) we are really clueless about the distant past.
Speak for yourself. Not all of us aer "really clueless", because we've studied the evidence in great depth and learned a vast amount about what it tells us.
One could use the same standards for theories of our origins as we in IT use for software QA/testing. In QA we measure to a known level of defects and lack of defects in the software based on the amount and type of testing done. If that methodology were applied to any and all theories about our origin, it would quickly be seen that we are clueless.
You clearly haven't actually *done* this kind of "QA/testing" on science, because if you had, you'd be unable to say something as silly as what you have said here.
So, lets see here.
You don't know the rules of science.
You don't know the rules of logic (a contention must be proven)
You don't know the difference between a myth and a fact.
You don't know much do you?
You really should stop making a fool of yourself. It is becoming pathetic.
Are you sure your Mommy knows about your fooling around on her computer?
Drivel..... absolute ignoratti drivel
False.
although some like to dress it up and call it a science.
Wrong, it's called a science because it is.
Darwinists needed supremes to give them credibility,
False. And what does Diana Ross have to do with this?
a house to worship in, which use to be called a schoolhouse,
False. Evolutionary biology is neither "worshipped" nor done in "schoolhouses", it's done in research labs and in field work. You haven't a clue, have you?
and taxation of the masses to keep the electricity powering the ventilators that makes death look alive.
Do even you believe this nonsense that spews out of your brain? You rant and rant and say nothing concrete, or that even resembles reality. Where, exactly, do you acquire these fantasies, and why do you swallow them so eagerly?
Please tell us where you "learned" this bit of gross ignorance, because it's laughable nonsense. Why don't you bother to crack open a science journal for a change, instead of gulping down whatever propaganda factory you're currently feeding from?
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.