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.
I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
Could you be more specific about what you are asking?
What? Creationist are the ones with blind faith.
...the fossil record should contain near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different "transitional" forms, and even greater numbers of evolutionary dead ends.
That is exactly what occurred. Unfortunately most of the
gazillions of creatures past have decayed into their base
elements.
Gee, really? Where? Be specific. Quote them.
and say they don't have to debate other scientists
Horse manure. Evolutionary biologists can and do debate other scientists. Some may say they don't *want* to, but there's no sin in that.
because they "pontificate" that they are not scientists (despite practice or education credentials) unless they believe in evolution.
More manure pouring out of your mouth in a fountain...
This, my friend, is defining away any debate...and is hiding...plain and simple.
No hiding at all -- I'll debate you on this topic any time you choose, even though you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Not nearly as poor as all of yours on this thread.
Wow, what an utterly lame, and fundamentally dishonest, response.
All of those are real fossils, son. So what is this crap about "what they could not find"? They've been found, and you're unable to deal with it in a mature or honest manner.
It's like this, I owe you nothing.
And you have no stature to deem my sincere belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster NOT a reality.
"And you have no stature to deem my sincere belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster NOT a reality."
Hey you wallow in it, you were not even the subject.
Ramen, brother.
LOLOL!! The truth comes out! YOUR belief is the right one! All others are delusions!!
See the method by which evolutionists protect their unholy, cough, science, is nicely demonstrated upon this very site for alll to see. I remember it is allll about the lurkers and all the ranting, belittling insulting arrogance does not intimidate me.
We don't need to insult you. Your inability to understand the difference between science and mythology is self-insulting.
All we say is that Creationism belongs in Mythology/Philsophy and Evolution in Science.
We say noting about the existence of a Supreme Being. YOU are the arrogant one, saying that everyone must believe as you do.
And I like plenty of Garlic in it too.
I see reading comprehension is NOT your strong suit, as I was first accused of being delusional.
A proper understanding of the principles of: (a) the American Revolution, as expressed by the Founders; and (b) free enterprise (expounded by Adam Smith, also in 1776) prepares the rational mind to fully understand Darwin's theory of evolution in the context of the Age of Enlightenment. As it is with economics and politics, life itself will thrive in the absence of arbitrary authority. It may be that Darwin couldn't have achieved his intellectual breakthrough without the advantage of living in a post-1776 world.
The rational, freedom-loving conservative not only rejects the tyranny of Dark Ages guilds, state monopolies, trade restrictions, monarchy, and theocracy, but he also rejects creationism -- for the same reasons. Just as economies function best without controls, and societies function best when lightly governed, so too do biological systems organize themselves and proliferate without external guidance. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" appears to be everywhere, yet the hand of Providence is never intrusive.
Those who group Darwin with Marx and Freud are horribly confused. Darwin's work has nothing to do with theirs. Darwin properly deserves to be grouped with Adam Smith and the Founding Founders, as one of the Enlightenment philosophers -- perhaps one of the last, before the horrors of the 20th Century were unleashed by lesser minds.
"And I like plenty of Garlic in it too."
Garlic is good for the flesh.
In some cases types of speciation or "evolution" are posited to have been observed. They are few and never uncontroversial in the field.
This is exactly what I mean by the vast difference in terms of experimentation that can be done and data obtained in comparing something as complex as an organisms evolutionary speciation to elemental properties.
The most advanced research in evolutionary biology entails genomic comparisons. Using primates as an example where the genome sequences of humans and chimps are known at accuracies in the high 90 percentages and where fairly large amounts of gorilla and orangutan sequence is known, varying analyes will result in grouping human and chimp more closely together and in some cases humans are groups more separate from the apes with chimp and gorilla being most closely related.
These are examples of the still nascent understanding of relationships that can be directly measured and physically quantified.
There is no such uncertainty in the understanding of elemental properties, valence reactivity and the like.
The analogy is used for rhetorical purposes as it seems to help what you consider a side. But in science there are no sides, there is data and objectivity. No need for rhetoric or making false analogies.
Evangelists tend to use such hyperbolic rhetoric.
So ignore the real issues in my post and address a side issue.
I see reading comprehemsion is not YOUR strong suit. I addressed your entire post. You don't have the stones or the arguments to address mine.
But *I* do. I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage).
May his passing bring linguini upon us all.
No, they're not. Are you really this ignorant, or are you just trolling?
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.