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.
So long for now....
So what's the defect found in Archeopteryx?
Its teeth? Feathers? Bony tail?
When I published the first edition of this book I was hardly aware of creationism but, during the 1980s, like many other biologists I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context." (C. Patterson, Evolution, 2nd edition, p. 122)
So much for candor.
Cordially,
Well, if you've got some piece of evidence you can produce demonstrating Gods presence, then let's see it. Perhaps you've got an electronic instrument that can measure Him. Perhaps there's a chemical experiment that can detect Him or a camera that can take His picture. Perhaps you can pray certian words and demonstrate their reliable effectiveness.
Anything?
I suppose if I asked if you believed in Allah, or Zeus, or Isis, or Thor, or Pele, or any of the gods of the forrest in Brazil or the gods of India, China, Japan or the South Sea Islands, you'd tell me that those people just "made those gods up in their heads". While your God is the only God that is real. How is your faith better supported than those others? Do you really know anything about those other faiths?
My conclusion, after being persuaded that I must accept the literal Bible or reject God, was to reject God. There's no way I can buy a six day creation. I can't buy the idea that God sprinkled evidence for evolution in massive heaps just to deceive us while Genesis is literal. I can't accept a planetary flood or that Jonah lived in a whale's belly.
I rejected God specifically because of stubborn people who refuse to see the universe around us, but instead insist on pridefully pressing their particular faith on others.
Why some people think it's a good thing for their faith to promote anti-evolutionism, I'll never never know. It's driven me away God, and I'm sure it will others.
We know that it is impossible when confronted with a fossil, to be certain whether it is your ancestor, or the ancestor of anything else, even another fossil. We also know that adaptive scenarios are simply justifications for particular arrangements of fossils made after the fact, and which rely for their justification on authority rather than on testable hypotheses.is from Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature, in his 1999 book, In Search of Deep Time, (p. 127)
Cordially,
I do not want to take this thread off-topic into a Jewish-Christian debate. Suffice it to say that most Jews do not have a problem with (theistic) evolution; Jews do not believe that people living today need to be forgiven for the sins of Adam, but only for their own sins (cf. Deut. 24:16); and the Jewish concept of the Messiah has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin-- God Himself foregives our sins, if we are genuinely repentant. The role of the Messaiah will be to bring peace among the nations of the earth.
I usually wait until after work before I start drinking.
Why is it that the faith/religion of Secular Humanism (I quote your beloved SCOTUS on this) can rule in schools apart from all others?
Too weak to compete on a level playing field?
That'd odd, You didn't seem to quote anything. But that's entirely understandable, you being confused about my love of the SC and the meaning of the word 'secular' and all.
And creationism was taught in all state run schools up til the last 70 years or so, but couldn't quite match up to reality as well as the theory of evolution. Which is weaker?
Privatize all schools. Tax no one for their support. Oepn to the market. Send you kids where you wish. Allow parents to Charter them all, and teach what they wish. Direct parents who disagree to start their own or congregate with others of like mind.
I agree.
Bar parents from hasseling the courts over their "offense" that someone asked my child to recite the "Pledge" for crying out loud!!!!!! Aaaayaaaah!!!
I think your train of thought just derailed.
The federal and state government has NO BUSINESS in education. It is a local community issue.
Unfortunately, there's that reality thing again.
While I mostly agree on the federal, I disagree on the state control issue.
It took the federal government to outlaw segregated schools, - the states weren't going to do it. But that's about the best that could be said for federal control. The states should be able to set broad standards for what the community expects an 'educated' person to know.
Unless fundamentalist faiths manage to destroy the scientific culture altogether, evolution will have to be replaced by something else that explains the fossil, DNA, radiometric, geologic and other evidence that we have in hand. That new something *must* explain the origin of species *better* than evolution does, or evolution stands.
Take a quick peruse through Ichneumon's posts, keeping in mind that those aren't even the tip of the iceberg of evidence we have, and tell me that ID or any other sheeps clothing over creationism has anything like that much evidence to back it up.
Perhaps you believe that God will come down and solve your science problems for you. Fine. But the fact is that such a faith is not scientific, and therefor is not appropriate in government settings.
So are you saying that you are away from God at this time?
The fact is, that virtually every fossil that exists should be a obvious intermediate form, if life began in a warm pond and the vast diversity of plants and animals sprang therefrom.
Don't even speak to me about one puzzle out of millions of gazillions of historical forms.
Why does your side try to stifle debate?
Oh my. I didn't realize the extent of your suffering at the hands of evil evolutionists. My apologies.
But once again, who's stifling debate? You state that a federal judge refused to permit the teaching of creationism in public schools, suggesting that this equals "stifling of debate." How so?
(1) Are creationists prevented from doing scientific research? No.
(2) Are creationists prevented from publishing and disseminating their views? No (and please don't tell me that you are unaware of the veritable mass-production of creationist books, pamphlets, web sites, and television and radio programming)
(3) Are you prevented from offering scientific support for creationism on this forum? No.
The problem is, creationists don't do (1), which means their mass-productions of (2) have nothing to do with science, which properly leads the courts to believe that their mass productions of (2) have everything to do with religion, which ultimately puts you at a rather embarrassing disadvantage when you attempt to present creationism as science while pursuing (3).
Believe me, I feel your pain.
It hasn't been refuted, and it probably hasn't been proved to anyone's satisfaction either. Darwinism is all about intelligent observation. He was a naturalist, not a professional atheist. Think Copernicus. When something contradicts a sacred belief, especially one that people are fond of, it has a hard time breaking through the darkness. The fossil record will probably never prove evolution or disprove it.
That was an interesting post you made to yourself.
It is, in my view, a lack of sufficient faith to say that apparant contradictions between our interpretation of the Bible and science must always require that they be resolved.
If one's faith is sufficient, it is possible to say "someday I will understand either the science better or the Bible better."
Have you checked his premises and his data?
Can I take that to mean that you know nothing about viral insertions and how they confirm evolutionary theory in an elegant manner?
National Geographic is not a scientific journal. Try again.
Your anser does not appear responsive to my post.
Your trust in your own intellect and doubts drove you away from God, as well as numerous other life experiences.
One either leans in and loves and believes God, or leans out and looks for reasons to NOT believe.
We convince ourselves of our own positions.
It is a shame that you are where you are.
Like I said in an earlier post, all believers in various gods cannot be right. The true, open and level public square allows all comers and the chips fall where they may.
The American Public Square says only Secular Humanists, generalizing here of course, need only come.
Who judges "genuine" from less than so?
"And creationism was taught in all state run schools up til the last 70 years or so, but couldn't quite match up to reality as well as the theory of evolution. Which is weaker?"
Not really true that it was taught, more like accepted as true by the balance of the country.
The secularists of the day played a show trial of sensationalism to put it over in the fantastic media of the day while most slept.
"Unfortunately, there's that reality thing again."
Extra-Constitutionality in SCJs...It is tough. The Courts have been sliding down the slippery slope for well over 100 years.
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.