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.
Darwinism on the run Bump!
well, if you put it that way... carry on soldier!
" It is a debate of science vs. religion. The worldviews are entirely different, as is the evidence vs. the belief.
That does not make for a very productive debate."
and so because of that we silence one side of the debate?
That's a tactic used by our dimocratic cousins. Not Free thinking men and women.
The Truth is always the truth and if you deny it speech then you become part of the problem, not the solution.
I'm truly trying to make sense of the transitional argument.
Are the fossils in this graphic claiming to be proof of micro or macro evolution?
How is the difference defined?
The evolution side does present its definitions, and has done so on multiple threads. On this thread, for example, in post #158
Both sides like to define words differently.
The creationist side often refuses to define their terms at all, even when asked; see posts 289 and 290, for example, and here.
Evolutionary biology rests of vast mountains of evidence, no "faith" is required."is not quite true.
It is, and your subsequent material doesn't contradict what I wrote. We're talking about two different things. The problem is that the word "faith" has several distinct meanings. There's "faith" in the sense of "belief despite lack of evidence (or often "in the face of contradictory evidence"), held due to premises of another sort. Religious faith is an example of this kind of faith, and is the kind the person to whom I was responding was talking about, and I responded in the same vein. The kind of "faith" which your source is talking about is another kind of "faith", it is confidence in something despite incomplete evidence, due to inductive reasoning. (See for example definitions #1 and #2 at dictionary.com").
I have no large quibble with the quotes you include (albeit I have some small complaints which probably aren't worth going into here), but they don't refute what I wrote above.
I read a Pro-evolutionist book, "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci. This was in response to a different person who disagreed that faith plays a part in evolutionary theory of origins.
Again, it sounds as if you and your correspondent were talking about two different senses of the word "faith".
In my first e-mail to you, I made a statement about faith being required to believe in evolution. Massimo reaffirms this on page 28 where he says, “Although we all necessarily have to make assumptions about the world in order to live our lives, some assumptions represent small and others large leaps of faith and science is distinguished by an attempt to make those leaps as small as possible—in fact, no larger than any person of common sense would make …”
Look, in this passage Pigliucci is clearly speaking about "faith" in the sense of "conclusions made from incomplete evidence", as is made clear by the fact that he is talking about *assumptions*, not "faith" in the sense of "conclusions made despite the *absence* of evidence."
Also, I find it odd that you would truncate the sentence at the point you did, since your truncation alters the strength of the sentence. "...no larger than any person of common sense would make..." makes it sound like he's talking about the size of the "leaps of faith" that an average person might consider making in cases of Big Questions like origins or whatever, but that's not what he meant. The complete passage, which you cut off in mid phrase, is: "...larger than any person of common sense would make while engaged in the process of buying a used car, for example." That changes the meaning considerably -- why did you cut it off the way you did? Do you feel that was an honest alteration of the sentence?
He demonstrates a few of those leaps of faith when he states that science is not immune from ideology or social pressure (p.66),
Observing that something is not immune from ideology is not the same as saying that it is based on "faith".
or on p. 145 that science can not draw conclusions about things it can not measure
Fine, since it doesn't, this is not an example of scientific "faith" either.
(like a primitive organisms (p. 203)
Page 203 does not argue that primitive organisms are beyond examination, nor that it takes "faith" to draw conclusions about them. All it says is that no *modern* organism is a perfect representative of "our earliest ancestors". And you're "forgetting" to mention that in later pages the author goes on to describe *other* ways of acquiring evidence about the nature of primitive organisms...
or transitional forms or how non life created life or how mutations could add genetic information vs. subtract information, etc.),
What about them?
or how science is subjective because it is done by human beings (p.248),
That doesn't support the claim that evolutionary biology is based on "faith"... The same goes for the rest of your attempted examples.
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).
In short, you have misrepresented Pigliucci's actual position, and twisted it to your own agenda in a way that the author would most likely strongly disagree with.
And again, no, this is not about "things that cannot be observed". You're misunderstanding what it means to make a scientific observation. It does not mean necessarily actually being able to sit there and watch a thing or process as it takes place in front of you. Indeed, if we could do that in all cases, we wouldn't need science in order to investigate them. Science exists precisely to explore the things which *aren't* so directly apparent.
What needs to be "observable" in science is not necessarily the thing or process being explored, but its consequences, its effects, its results -- the evidence of its existence and/or workings.
The funny thing is...you don't need to believe evolutionary theory of origins to DO science.
Speak for yourself. I find it very useful in mine. No one's saying that it's fundamentally useful in *all* sciences, but then the same could be said for any other field or theory in science as well -- they're all quite useful in the appropriate realms, and less useful in others.
In other words, this is more of an ideology then practical science.
In other words, you're making claims which are quite incorrect, and which don't even follow from the material you provided.
Yes. Odds are, though, I've already read it. I've read more creationist and anti-evolution books than most creationists.
Cuz obviously whoever posts the most information is right. Of course.
If I had said such a thing, you'd have just cause to chastise me for it. Since I haven't, however, you're just being a twit.
Look, I'm sorry you feel overwhelmed by the amount of hard, real-world evidence I have at my disposal which supports evolution. I sympathize. But whining about it doesn't help your case any.
But you're hardly the first to feel overwhelmed that way. Read this and see if it helps: The Mirage (of anti-evolutionism).
But gosh, then you might *learn* something, and we all know how dangerous that can be to your cherished presumptions. Best to just close your eyes, right? There's even a nickname for that behavior by anti-evolutionists: Morton's Demon.
I'm sure he would immediately change his mind and abandon evolution.
Only if you provided evidence that such a change was actually warranted.
*SNICKER*
Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."
On the other hand, I could pick the first thing out and rebut that,
From your past "contributions", I find that proposition to be an unlikely one.
to which the response would be "SO! What about all the other stuff? You could only find one thing?!" Ad naseum.
Heck, I'm still waiting for the anti-evolutionists to find *one* good rebuttal. And I've been at this for over thirty years now.
Well, the early ape species that evolutionists claim is the common ancestor of apes & humans looked much more like a modern chimp than anything else, so presumably creationists would regard the lineage from apes of 8 million years ago to today's chimpanzees as a microevolutionary one.I'm truly trying to make sense of the transitional argument.
Are the fossils in this graphic claiming to be proof of micro or macro evolution?
How is the difference defined?
Australopithecines are generally regarded (on both sides of the debate) to be apes, so I guess you could say they represented microevolutionary changes from the parent species. The Neanderthals are generally regarded on both sides as "microevolutionarily" different from Homo sapiens. (Even among mainstream paleontologists there seems to be a real debate on whether or not Neanderthals are truly a separate species from H. sapiens.)
But most creationists claim that the apes represent a macro-difference to humans, so they must have come from two mutually exclusive created kinds. So what of the species in between - Homo hablis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. heidelbergensis? Can you tell which created kind they fall into? If there are no transitional species (a.k.a. "missing links") linking apes with humans, then these early species which evolutionist paleontologists call "Homo" should be separated from the Australopithecines and/or Neanderthals & ourselves by macro-level differences. IOW, it should be easy to tell if they're "just an old ape" or "just an old human".
But if no such classification makes sense because all the differences between those in the middle & those at the ends look just too much like micro-evolution, well, then this macro-difference between apes & humans has suddenly become a series of microevolutionary links. In which case it's Excedrin time for someone.
OH but 147 years is not even a twinkle of the eye in the matter of TIME, wonder if anything significant will occur on the 150th year?
*shrug* Ping me if it does. Until then...
Flooding is an appropriate word for what is called evidence and validation.
Yes, there are vast torrents of it. Sorry about that. You might want to look back a few posts and read the link to "The Mirage" I posted to GLDNGUN, you'll probably find it quite familiar as well.
["Yes, there is a gigantic heap of supporting evidence for it."]
Yes heaps and heaps of bones showing all that transitioning.
Yes, among huge numbers of other independent lines of evidence in large amounts indicating the same thing, including overwhelming DNA evidence.
Thanks..Which blog do you mean though, mine on Freep or this one?
http://newyorkhack.blogspot.com/
That one above isn`t mine, that one is by a female cabbie who works out of a garage I use to work out of. She`s funny as hell, everytime someone gives her the finger she takes out her camera and takes their picture. lol!
"If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?"
Er.. there is already plenty of opportunity outside of classrooms for ID proponents to make fools of themselves, which they do with alacrity.
His predictions aren't based on "bias", they're based on long experience. I, too, assume that each new anti-evolution creationist book will be "filled with errors, misrepresentations, and outright distortions", based on the fact that the last 100+ I've read have fallen into that description. Sure, it's *possible* that the next one might actually be worthwhile for a change, but that's not the way to be. The rational expectation is that the next one will be as incompetent and dishonest as all the ones that came before it.
Hard-line Darwinians hold their beliefs in evolution as strongly as any Creationist holds his/her beliefs.
But for entirely different reasons. We do so because we are familiar with the vast amounts of evidence, and all the research which has confirmed and validated the conclusions we have drawn about evolutionary biology. You, on the other hand, hold your belief for... other reasons.
To believe in EITHER, requires faith.
Nope. It doesn't take "faith" to have confidence in the validity of evolutionary biology, it takes knowledge, understanding of the relevant processes, and familiarity with the evidence. For any part of evolutionary biology, the tenets can be personally verified and double-checked. No "faith" necessary in the least. "Faith" is for things which *can't* be checked for validation. Evolutionary biology can.
One could make the argument that the Darwinians actually possess more faith than Creationists.
Only if one were really ignorant about biology.
To look at Creation and believe that it's a result of intelligent design is the most obvious, logical answer.
It was also the "most obvious, logical answer" to look at the Sun moving across the sky and believe that it revolved around the Earth, instead of vice versa. That was so obvious, they even arrested a man for saying something to the contrary:
"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."And:
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini concerning Galileo's "heresy".
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.If the Vatican can get basic physics so freaking wrong, and even claim the Bible as support, I have even less confidence in "common sense" conclusions of amateurs on even more complex issues.
-- Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)
To believe that human beings evolved from pond scum...well, now THAT is faith!
Not when that's what the real-world evidence indicates, it's not.
They arrested Galileo for asserting something as "ridiculous" as the Earth moving around the Sun, and weren't interested in listening to his evidence, since they "knew" the "right" answer already -- it was so obvious!
"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations."And following that basic principle, Galileo got it right when the Church and so many others had it wrong.
-- Galileo Galilei
There's a lesson in that. We've learned it. You and many others, however, are making the same mistakes by following the same 400-year-old fallacies.
No, I've chosen not to play his game.
My "game" is to argue the issue on its actual merits. And yes, I've noticed that you don't want to "play" that.
I certainly could if I wanted.
Uh huh. Sure.
It's simply a matter of copying and pasting mountains of your favorite propaganda, converting to HTML, and storing on a computer file.
If that's what you think, then you're even more ill-equipped to debate this topic than I originally thought.
Then, when someone questions your beliefs, you do your docu-dump, and hope someone takes the bait and chases their tail.
If discussing the evidence would cause you to "chase your own tail", well, then you should get a clue and consider that you're on the wrong side of the discussion.
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.
Excuses, excuses. Look, if you don't dare discuss -- or even *look* at -- the actual real-world evidence, just be a man and admit it. That would be a lot more dignified than your current hand-waving and blustering about why you have all the time in the world to blather on about why you won't address the material head-on, but no time to actually do it...
Exactly. So how do *you* deal with the folks who keep showing up to proclaim that there's "no" evidence for evolution, it's all just an "ideology"?
"Probably more correct is that all human thought includes within it embedded error."
Nice relativist statement. So it doesn't really matter whether you believe that the sun orbits the earth, or the earth orbits the sun, as all human thought has some "embedded error"?
and so because of that we silence one side of the debate?
No one's "silencing one side of the debate". They're just as belligerently vocal as ever.
That's a tactic used by our dimocratic cousins. Not Free thinking men and women.
Which is why we don't do that.
The Truth is always the truth and if you deny it speech then you become part of the problem, not the solution.
I agree.
Hint: The court rulings preventing violations of the First Amendment are not "silencing" anyone, you're still just as free to mouth off as before. All those were about was keeping religious indoctrination out of public schools.
Keep on keeping on, Longshadow. :)
*applause*
Man, I wish that fit in a tagline...
Also, the same argument applies to my fish to elephant transitional series -- each of the steps is small enough that creationists would try to hand-wave it away as "just microevolution", and yet the overall sequence involves a fish changing into an elephant, which even the most die-hard anti-evolutionist would have to admit is pretty "macro" macroevolution.
What I find absolutely mind-boggling is that IDers, who do not have a SINGLE SHRED of scientific evidence for their assertions, nor have conducted a single experiment or published a single peer-reviewed article, have the gall to criticise supporters of Darwin for their 'lack of evidence'.
The irony would be almost funny if I wasn't utterly sick to the back teeth of it.
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.