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.
You don't have any rebuttal to Ich's post either.
Buzzzztttt. Wrong definition of evolution. Biogenesis takes place *before* evolution is possible.
According to the rules of the game in Post 276 that's -1 point.
You're not off to a good start, already one point in the hole.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
"Darwinians" (or evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and other scientists, to use non-derogatory terms) rely on data and theory, and the scientific method.
There is no need for faith.
[And I have never been able to understand why creationists try to denigrate evolutionary science by saying, "evolution is religion" and "Darwinians actually possess more faith than Creationists." If you want to slam evolutionary theory, you should say its not as good as faith and religion, not that it is the same as faith and religion.]
No, I've chosen not to play his game. I certainly could if I wanted. It's simply a matter of copying and pasting mountains of your favorite propaganda, converting to HTML, and storing on a computer file. Then, when someone questions your beliefs, you do your docu-dump, and hope someone takes the bait and chases their tail. Unless your ego is as big as a house, you know it's unlikely that anybody cares enough about your biased sources and views to actually take the time to respond, point by point. Then you declare victory. It takes about 1/100th of the time to do this than to respond to such a dump. Again, if someone can't make a point without trying to weary you to death by making you chase down a thousand points, they aren't worth my time. It would be like being in debate with John Kerry, where it's UNDERSTOOD that your comments should be brief and to the point, except Kerry gets up there to respond to a point and drones on for 5 hours. Now, are you going to dignify it by responding? For how long? 10 minutes to rebut one point? 20 hours to respond to every point? Personally, I leave after about 5 minutes into the windbag's lovefest. Some people love to hear themselves talk. Some people love to see their words on a computer screen. For either, the more the better. If you want to stick around and fawn over your Kerry, you go right ahead.
By the way, did you look up everything he posted? You DIDN'T????
Maybe your new dog ate the rebuttal. That's the excuse I'd use.
Well, each to their own.
What are you talking about?
You think Heaven has a Web Site?
Yeah, I know. I used to work on a project that traced a conserved DNA sequence that coded for an enzyme from primive bacteria all the way to modern plants.
See post #288.
I examined post #288, and your summary is:
In short you don't need faith to study what you can observe, but you need faith in the scientific community for things that cannot be observed (like original primitive organisms).The funny thing is...you don't need to believe evolutionary theory of origins to DO science. In other words, this is more of an ideology then practical science.
I think you misunderstand the issues. You are confusing origins (as in beginning of life) with origins (as in origin of the species).
The latter came after life began, and can operate no matter how life originated. For example, if the first self-replicating cell began through supernatural, natural, or extraterrestial origins, how would the subsequent evolution necessarily differ?
Science works from data and theory. As Heinlein wrote:
So, I contend that the various sciences which make up the study of evolution rely on data and theory, not faith.Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
And it is definitely not an ideology. Come up with new data, and everything can change in an instant. DNA studies could have blown Darwin's theory out of the water, but they didn't. They confirmed his theories instead.
So, 150 years and still counting. And still being tested. And still being verified. Because the theory of evolution is science, not faith or belief or ideology.
This is the cubs year! 98 years is too long!
You're right. Some people love to see their words on a computer screen.
placemarker
He was just coming of age when Jefferson died but surely had they been contemporaries Jefferson would have had a bust of Darwin in his "gallery of worthies" just as he had Voltaire, Lafayette or Franklin.
It's weird how the mind will make things up to support a clearly refuted theory. I know you believe it, but your dark side is persuading you.
False. It is trivially easy to do so if it is, indeed, false.
Furthermore, most evolutionists today would not call themselves Darwinists.
And you base your claim on... what?
It is a Tower-of-Babel arrogance for both sides of the debate to claim that they are right and the other side is wrong when neither side has sufficient evidence to support anything but their imagination of how it might have been.
Wrong again. Read my post. Read the links. Read the primary sources which are cited. Read the sources which *they* cite. And on and on. There is so much evidence for evolutionary biology that you could literally spend the rest of your life reading it and die before you had covered a fraction of it. Is that what you call not "sufficient evidence", leaving us with nothing "but imagination" to stand on? Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds? It's not just my "imagination" that humans and apes share common retroviral elements in their DNA which could plausibly only have been inherited from a common ancestor, for example. That's not "just imagination", that's real.
It's just amazing how they can let their dark sides just make up all those identical virus insertions in the human genome, just to make it look like man came from monkeys. Sheesh.
I'd like to think I'm on your side, being thoroughly convinced of evolution as I am, but who the heck is going to read all that drivel?
Anyone who actually wants to learn something about the subject. Look, it's not *that* long...
What case of mental paresis would even both to write it?
Many false claims were made in this thread, which required rebuttal.
To paraphrase a great and historically important American: "I think that I agree with everything you're saying, but oh how I wish you'd shut up."
Why, exactly, would you want someone to "shut up" in the face of false propaganda?
That's like calling the Constitution "only a piece of paper".
but Darwinists are willing to make a monkey of themselves to prove it.
By refuting the lies of anti-evolution propagandists? How, exactly, does that make *me* the monkey?
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.