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.
May I ask what your point is with regard to a topic in science?
The authority of the Bible was (and is) attacked by a few who think it has been proven unreliable by current scientific thought. Your logic is good and you are rightly showing the inconsistency of the accuser(s).
Of course not, but you assume that every theistic evolutionist is worshipping the same God as you and is therefore reading the Bible wrong. Depending on who you're talking to, your particular theist might worship Yahweh, Allah, or the "inactive" God of Deism.
Keep in mind that I am an atheist, and so when I say "a different God," I do not mean that there are actual seperate entities receiving worship. I am referring to the fact that differences in beliefs among theists lead to differences in the image of God they are worshipping.
Oh, you know what I mean. Secular humanists do not view man as a deity in the normal sense of the word.
You cannot find a biologist who believes a bird ever turned into a lizard. So what's your point?
In the standard understanding of evolution, nothing has ever been born that is not of the same species as its parents.
I tagged my last note of the day.
You are so funny I can't stand it.
There is no evidence of many things that occurred over 1,000 years ago.
Does that mean they are not reality? There is a historic method, and by this method the existence, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is undeniable except to the most insincere and blinded skeptic.
The Nina, the Pinta and Santa Maria don't exist anymore. Does that mean Columbus never sailed in them?
"However, there is positive evidence Genesis cannot be taken literally."
Yours and those who agree with you are stating an opinion, not a fact.
There are folks who would regularly debate this with you either via archaeology or other means.
Amen!
Which is why Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis foolishly and ignorantly undermine all of Scripture with their synthesized belief mixture.
They just don't think or logic it through.
Junior
Come on...the lives of the Apostles, almost all of which died ignominious deaths give a type of proof to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
People will not die horribly for a lie. At the stake, on the way to the cross, on the cross, at some moment they would break down and retract.
None of the 11, from multiple historical sources, did this.
Not so.
He is tying the two together because Jesus Christ does not give us any choice but to do so.
See my prior post regarding the Apostles lives.
There are books that deal with these too.
The Resurrection Factor, Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
We don't have electronic copies of such books to cut and paste in here. You have to research and read them yourself.
Safe assumption.
I think you should base your entire eternal existence on that safe assumption, and others like it.
It is a gamble though.
One had said on this post,
most christians and jews believe in evolution.
Quite frankly, I don't have much respect for followers of Islam. The Koran is full of such foolishness, plain hatred and inconsistency...it has no standing as a work of God...but is just a work of a man...
BTTT
W.
to be honest, the fossil record already has disproved evolution with the lack of transitional fossils that should be very plentiful throughout the fossil record. That just isn't so. Even Darwin himself said that his theory would not stand without the transitional fossils.
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.