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.
Good when eaten too.
Bravo .... Bravo ....
Almost as good as Aloe.
|
You may recollect, but it's probablt INcorrectly.
Story smells like one or those myths Bibleworshippers tell themselves to comfort themselves against the great unknown.
No specific sorces is ever given, details of the tale vary.
And from his other writings there is no indication that Voltaire was optimistic the humanity as a whole would develop rationality any time soon.
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.I trust that the aforementioned creationists haven't responded yet because they're busy analyzing those fossil skulls from post 84. Let me just add that this request is going out to ANY of you creationsts who think there are no transitional fossils between ape & human. I just pinged these 4 because they made that claim on this thread. But surely some of you others here share their belief. So if it's true that there are no transitional fossils between apes & humans, then it should be easy for you to classify all those fossils into their proper baramin.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 humanCan you do it?
Of course... if they really are transitionals, then you should have a difficult time figuring out whether a fossil is the "just an early ape" created kind vs. the "just an early human" created kind. In which case I can fully understand why it's taking you a long time to come up with an answer.
Can you do it?
You put aloe on your spaghetti?
Huh???????? Speciation is in dispute? Can the author point to ANY active antievolutionist controversialist who actually believes in fixed species? I certainly can't find any. (Maybe a few armchair antievolutionists somewhere do.) Antievolutionists generally get offended if someone assumes they accept the 19th Century notion of fixed species.
Really? Well, you've made the claim. Put your money where your mouth is. Provide examples.
I don't think the Bible = God.
You may need to explore life in different circles of influence.
Not really. Most folks who accept evolution are Christians or Jews, and most of the rest couldn't care less what happens to any particular religion.
You seem to think your beliefs are important enough to engender some sort of cabal against them. Truth be told, your beliefs aren't really that big a deal to anyone but you.
I do have such a tool -- your own posts. Evolution is a fully-formed, fleshed out science. It is shoulder to shoulder with physics, mathematics, etc. It is subject to scrutiny and peer review. It is adjusted as facts come to light. So much for your rather childish assertsion.
Well get a clue the Heavenly Father is not bound by wee wittle man in their grand designs.
Once again, your arrogance is showing. So, by your reckoning, the Bible is a proper tool for examining Phsysics, aerodynamics, chemistry, mathematics, etc? This has to do with logic, science and academics. Religion belongs in religious studies.
Yes to stand against darwin is like committing the unpardonable sin. You will never find anywhere that I in any form say anyone must believe as I do. My objection to evolution is the FACT that it is government funded and government required teaching to a young captive audience.
To deny science on purpose out of pure ignorance and pigheadedness is wrong. It is the job of the school to teach science in science class. To allow primitive fundamentalists to undermine the ability of American students to perform in the Natural Sciences.
Everyone does???
Not true. I don't. And I'm not hiding. There are areas in which I freely admit I haven't the foggiest idea of the truth.
You might also inquire as to their positions on what I posted in #102. I have had no response.
Its funny, people say there is no evidence for evolution, or that there are no transitionals. We post evidence and transitionals and we get complete silence, willful disbelief, or occasionally outright "I can't see any evidence" denials.
Some of these are backed up with passages from creationist websites which are so far from actual science as to be laughable. (I call this "pretzel science"--you bend it until it fits somehow.)
But I have rarely had any responses which included scientific discussion of the evidence. There are a lot of controversies within evolution, but the existence of the field as a true science is not one of them.
The modern scientific community has is hierarchy of bishops, priests and seminarians.
That's such a ridiculous statement I just wanted to repeat it.
This is an example of an anti-science rant.
Unfortunately, that conclusion makes many people uncomfortable.
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.