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.
What I really have great respect for (sarcasm here), are those evolution believing scientists who REFUSE to debate non-scientists.
Hence, the Evolutionary scientist defines scientist as, not someone with a degree in one of the sciences from a respected university, but simply one of the same who believes in evolution too.
So....he or she holds to a very narrowly held definition so he does NOT have to debate anyone he or she disagrees with on a fundamental level.
Note: I am NOT a scientist, just a well read special creationist who watches from the sidelines.
> Don’t see anyone disputing those missing fossil records.
I don't see Jesus in front of me. Therefore, Christianity is going to the ash-heap of history.
Are you two (and the author) suggesting that, if evolution is true, the physical process of fossilization would be substantively different than it is, and there would be more fossils than actually exist?
Already past 16 posts; it appears no records will be broken today.
absolute drivel - and grammatically ??? - anyway, strains the credibility of the article and the author, including statements about Darwin. Give it a rest already.
That's really funny. Darwin has made up to genuine boogyman status.
Only a creationist could find a way to link a failed economist, a failed psychiatrist, and one of the most successful scientific theorists extant.
Who was that guy who said in his lifetime Christianity would cease to exist...
only for his heirs to see Bibles being printed out of his office or home AFTER his death.
Please! For the love of God! In the name of all that is holy! I beg of you!
Come up with something new! I mean really, how many times can the same old stuff be tossed out and soundly refuted (again). It's sad and depressing.
As an evo I look to you, my IDer and creo opponents. Can you give me something new? Please? Pretty please? With suger on top?
It's because it's not being ignored by backward school boards from Pennsylvania to Kansas is why you and I are both here.
Care to try again?
And, creationists have been trumpeting the downfall of evolution since about 25 years before Darwin's work was published. And, it ain't happened yet.
Now, unless you have some POSITIVE evidence for a particular non-Darwinian view (and by positive, I don't mean picking at evolution), then you really haven't got a dog in this hunt.
As far Darwinism/evolution, there's nothing to replace it. There's no alternative theory.
+
= TOE
> Who was that guy who said in his lifetime Christianity would cease to exist...
The brother of the idjit who declared that evolution was going to be overturned by Creationism.
I had to read your post a few times concerning Mendeleev before I realized that you were being tongue in cheek.
http://www.chemistry.co.nz/mendeleev.htm
Analogies like this demonstrate serious scientific illiteracy.
I sure am glad you're posting on the side of all those high minded Christians out there.
Start with the fact that what we call "the fossil record" is one tiny pinpoint in a vast sea of data, most of which has vanished and the rest of which hasn't been found. A pinpoint. For anyone to assume the so-called fossil record can tell us anything on this issue is the ultimate in hubris.
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.