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.
I will distinctly pass on your suggestion of review.
God alone knows where this culture's sliding will end...hopefully not over an abyss.
You can.
Not that I agree that they elegantly can do anything of the sort.
What relation does this have to do with what is ultimate truth?
None. It is just current room noise.
I have read and studied it all very carefully.
I have to surrender to the logic based on the Word of God and its imbedded theology.
I spoke of God forgiving sinners who are "genuinely repentant." Obviously, only God is the judge of that. See, for example, I Kings 8:46-51.
From the evolutionist view point, life came from an inanimate primordial soup of sorts - LOL! They never bother to explain WHERE or HOW this primordial soup of sorts came about ... guess it's just another magic trick that involved million or is it now billions of years? Whatever ... MORE time won't explain it either. Neither does MORE time address the complexities of any living thing - when one part won't function without the other - in other words it did NOT "evolve". It was created in whole at one time.
Evolution isn't holding up to close scrutiny. Those that have the ability to look at issues critically are laughing at it in private and publically highlighting it's short comings through legitimate science.
You appear not to have the post I was responding to.
You don't say that you have checked his premises and data for anything other than conforming with your predetermined conclusions.
Doen't cont as checking.
We are in exactly the same page, only you are far more eloquent.
Amazing. You read it but you didn't understand it.
Patterson said it is not possible to say for certain whether any particular fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a living species.
Every species population is slightly different from from the parent group, a branching of characteristics from the main group. Evolution predicts that some of those will not survive and go extinct. In many cases, the main 'trunk' is the line that goes extinct and only some of the 'twigs' survive. Dinosaurs and birds for example.
Without perfect knowledge of characteristics of the original group and perfect knowledge of every intermediate, you can't be certain how close to the main group or how far along the branch a given fossil is.
And you certainly can't say that *this* fossil reproduced and was the fore-bearer of all the living descendants.
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."
caffeine breake needed.
more evidence of overdue caffeine break.
"Doesn't count as checking"
off for a while
Indeed.
"I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Your prideful confidence in your correct choice of god keeps you faithful.
One either leans in and loves and believes God, or leans out and looks for reasons to NOT believe.
Which god? If you are like most, you've never really been presented with any other faith.
We convince ourselves of our own positions.
No. Most hold our faith because of those around us. Which is why children of Muslims are Muslim, and children of Christians are Christian, etc.
It is a shame that you are where you are.
Yes it is. But is the fault of the legalistic insistence of Genesis literalists that I'm here. The Catholics don't do such nonsense. After their tragic lesson of Galileo, they no longer challenge science. Faith *always* loses when it challenges science. Always.
Like I said in an earlier post, all believers in various gods cannot be right.
That was my point. Now why is it that you're convinced that you are right, and the majority of others on this planet are wrong? You do realize that Christians are a minority on this earth?
The true, open and level public square allows all comers and the chips fall where they may.
Open to satanists? To scientologists? Open to every religion of every student, so as not to discriminate? In public school science class?
I don't think you really want that.
The American Public Square says only Secular Humanists, generalizing here of course, need only come.
Science is not a "Secular Humanist" religion, despite the boogy man portrayals of it by some preachers. If every actual religion was given a forum in public schools, which you know would be demanded, it would be chaos. Therefore no religion gets presented. That's for sunday school.
"Which god? If you are like most, you've never really been presented with any other faith."
Bad assumption. I took a course in World Religions in university and worked my way through the rudimentaries and origin stories each advanced.
"That was my point. Now why is it that you're convinced that you are right, and the majority of others on this planet are wrong? You do realize that Christians are a minority on this earth?"
To do anything less is to not hold anything real in faith. It is to surrender any faith, surety or belief. That is the public square.
"Open to satanists? To scientologists? Open to every religion of every student, so as not to discriminate? In public school science class?"
Privatize the public schools. If there are enough satanists to populate a school, have at it. They would not be permitted to drive their exceedingly minority belief upon any school they choose.
"Science is not a "Secular Humanist" religion, despite the boogy man portrayals of it by some preachers. If every actual religion was given a forum in public schools, which you know would be demanded, it would be chaos. Therefore no religion gets presented. That's for sunday school."
No boogeyman in my mind. Again, privatize all schools...no publics. Each school can go where the majority drives it regarding curriculum, similar to charter schools. Charter the entire system. That would depolitize it.
But that doesn't mean you've *really* been presented with any other faith. I'm talking going to services for extended periods, hanging out with friends who are members. Basically totally immersing yourself in a culture that holds that faith.
If you're like most, you hold the faith of those around you. Which means you didn't choose your faith based on some kind of equal comparison using logic. It was chosen by your luck of birth, and you're convinced that you've "lucked" into the right faith that will take you to heaven.
If you don't believe in life's lottery, and you step back and try to chose the one true faith based on logic, it is impossible. No faith has any more logical evidence of it's "truth" than any other.
Privatize the public schools.
But before you were talking about "the public square". Now you want the "private square". That's fine.
But still the bottom line is that evolution is true. Whether you choose to hide your eyes and hold your ears or not. And generating artificial stumbling blocks, so that any scientifically minded young person in your faith must choose between the evidence in front of them or the faith presented in an old book, might likely be forced to reject God as I had to. That would be a tragedy. I would hate to put people through that when it's not necessary, so I continue to urge Christians to have an open mind as to the actual meaning of Genesis. My grandchildren's faith may depend on it.
Considering there are some 24,000 Christian denominations in the U.S. alone, each believing in a particular interpretation of Scripture, many, if not most Bible-believing Christians would be considered quite sane. It's only those whose interpretation of Scripture is at odds with reality that would be considered insane.
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 think it is. There used to be a controversy over whether Homo habilis should really be called "Australopithecus habilis" because it looked to much like an A. Looking at the several websites that show hominid skulls, the jaws were the first things to change (generally speaking) as they started getting smaller, and not until much later the braincase started to grow. But in both cases the transitions are gradual.I'd be interested if that kind of linkage is well established in the fossil record in your opinion.
It really is hard for me to see where a creationist could put the line between man & ape.
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.