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.
NO! Ptttuuiii...
But on skin. mmmmmmm.
BTTT
A majority of evolutionists are theists, and by definition secular humanism is nontheistic.
Please continue your assistance
With the overkill of Darwin.
The Church of Organized Matter and Intelligent Design
Will not tolerate this has-been.
You'd better save that for future use. It's too good to lose.
You don't have any substantive rebuttal to Ichneumon? Nothing?
"You don't have any substantive rebuttal to Ichneumon? Nothing?"
Nope, I'll just read along and let others argue.
For 147 years now, it's been propped up just fine by the evidence and research results, and its support just keeps getting stronger year after year. With the advent of DNA sequencing, the evidence has been positively flooding in, providing vast new amounts of evideciary and validating findings in support of evolution.
personally I kinda like that word "heap" when talking about darwin's TOE.
Yes, there is a gigantic heap of supporting evidence for it.
And if I post an entire book on Creation, you'll sit there staring at your computer monitor and read it all, right? Cuz obviously whoever posts the most information is right. Of course.
Ich just gave you a huge target for your golden gun. Aren't you going to take a shot at any of it? Any rebuttal at all?
Sure, I could follow every link which will undoubtedly lead to other links and read everything ever written on the subject and post a reply. I'm sure he would immediately change his mind and abandon evolution. *SNICKER* On the other hand, I could pick the first thing out and rebut that, to which the response would be "SO! What about all the other stuff? You could only find one thing?!" Ad naseum.
Ichny would read that book and find every error, misrepresentation, and outright distortion in it, and give it back to you (probably in triplicate).
And its not the "most" information that counts. Its accurate information, well supported by fact and theory.
CS and ID are real short in that department because they are religious in origin, and are based on divine revelation and belief rather than fact and theory.
Just read the transcripts of the Dover trial. The ID proponents did not come off very well, under oath. Some actually lied. Not the way I would choose to support my beliefs.
Inquiring minds still want to know.
And some of us have lives. Funny you would assume that the book would be filled with errors, mispresentations, and outright distortions. No, you're obviously unbiased. ;-)
they are religious in origin, and are based on divine revelation and belief rather than fact and theory.
Hard-line Darwinians hold their beliefs in evolution as strongly as any Creationist holds his/her beliefs. To believe in EITHER, requires faith. One could make the argument that the Darwinians actually possess more faith than Creationists. To look at Creation and believe that it's a result of intelligent design is the most obvious, logical answer. To believe that human beings evolved from pond scum...well, now THAT is faith!
So, you have no rebuttal. Gave up before you even tried.
Maybe your new dog ate the rebuttal. That's the excuse I'd use.
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.