Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

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.

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.

I couldn't agree more.

And remember, these are the folks who want to try to "teach" science class...

I do have to correct one minor error in your post, though -- while it's true that the "ID" folks have no positive evidence, no original research, and no research findings in their favor, they have managed to get "a single peer-reviewed article" published in a non-creationist journal (the 2004 Stephen Meyer paper), but that's *one* published paper compared to literally hundreds of thousands (for certain -- perhaps millions) of published journal articles for evolutionary biology.

And the Meyer paper was a) severely flawed, b) just a review anyway, not a report of new findings, and c) published in an obscure journal that doesn't in any way specialize in anything approaching the topic of evolution or ID; normally it covers just taxonomy and other kinds of classification. A good introduction to the flaws in the Meyer paper can be found here, and at the very least the conclusion deserves to be read carefully:

"There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom — continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the “intelligent design” movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They’re not even playing the same sport."

Exactly.

thanks jenny.

I can see the point.

You would have to define, at some point, when a species became a different species.

"most creationists claim that the apes represent a macro-difference to humans"

then obviously they'd have a hard time justifying a non-macro evolutionary evidence with the fossils.

However, if they're not macro, different species, then no.

So, piling the micros end-to-end, somewhere you cross a macro line.

If you looked for the extreme, avoided the ape-human species question all together, then surely there is a line somewhere, all could agree is a different species - not even an ape for example.

I'd be interested if that kind of linkage is well established in the fossil record in your opinion.

If you, or others, have time, I'd also very much appreciate a response to the article's point about the Cambrian explosion. That has always puzzled me. The upside down tree diagram of species, and the explosion in general.

thanks for your reply..

"why did you cut it off the way you did? Do you feel that was an honest alteration of the sentence? "

Yes, It was an honest posting/alteration of the sentence. I don't remember the whole sentence, or the exact reason, I shortened it, but that is why I gave you the title and author, if you wanted to check on it. This discussion occured about a year ago, and I don't have with me all the notes that I took on the book.

This person, whom I still disagree with, did teach me a few things. (One is to make sure you are defining the same word the same.) He recommended that I read that book by Pigliucci to get a better understanding of evolution. I did an honest reading and took honest notes. The stuff I cut and pasted was part of a summary that I sent him.

"Again, it sounds as if you and your correspondent were talking about two different senses of the word "faith".

Thats what I was saying. However, he, you, and some others throw out that "NO faith is required for evolution," and that isn't all true. Our dissagreement is on how and where and how much faith is being used, or how faith is defined......a perfect illustration of what I was saying.

"Observing that something is not immune from ideology is not the same as saying that it is based on "faith"."

If you think that I believe that all of evolution is based on faith, that would be wrong. From your online dictionary, here is the first two definitions of ideology....

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Doctrines or beliefs are not observed experiments. They are peoples conclusions. example....You tell me water freezes at 32 Degrees F. I can observe that. But, if you tell me that 100 million years ago, a bird turned into a lizard, that I can't observe.....therefore it takes faith. Not the same level as faith that God is real, but faith none the less.

"Fine, since it doesn't, this is not an example of scientific "faith" either. "

This is your hair splitting based on your definition...fine. I don't accept the route your taking, but so what.

"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... "

Again, your definition of faith...fine. But it doesn't have to say "faith." If there are no modern representations, then you can't observe them, therefore it is faith. The "evidence" may point to the conclusion the author likes, but if you can't reproduce it to observe it, it is.....faith.

"That doesn't support the claim that evolutionary biology is based on "faith"... The same goes for the rest of your attempted examples."

That was in response to the fact that Pigliucci himself, noted that some scientific conclusions are subjective. If it is subjective, that would mean that it isn't completely reproduceable to be observed, if it can't be observed it is....faith. This is your online dictionary definition of subjective...

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world

This is from a post #158...

"Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

This is what you posted...

"And again, no, this is not about "things that cannot be observed". You're misunderstanding what it means to make a scientific observation."

This is what your online definition of science is...

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Science is about observation. Observation is directly related to calling something a fact. Therefore, evolutionary theory of origins is not based on facts, if you can't observe them.

"Speak for yourself."

I wouldn't want to speak for anyone else. The point is that many evolutionists don't recognize other scientists if they don't subscribe to the evolutionist doctrine. My point is that this theory of belief is not necessary to be a good scientist or do good scientific work.

"In other words, you're making claims which are quite incorrect, and which don't even follow from the material you provided."

Claims that you believe to be incorrect, and claims that you don't see how it is supported by the material provided. In other words.....We disagree. Fine.

Have a nice day.

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.