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 can't have a dialogue with you if you truly believe "Darwin on Trial" to be in the same category as books on UFOs and the like.
It should follow that you can tell an ape skull from a human skull, if creationism is true. No ape skull looks all that human now. All the skulls below are extant primate life forms.
Does throwing in gratuitous "ontologically"s and "epistemologically"s ease the pain when admitting you can't seem to tell an ape from a human in the fossil record? "Epistemologically easy?" Give it up, man!
A book by a lawyer who presumes to critique science? Yeah, it's about like a book on UFOs. Lawyers can bring out great arguments, but at every trial there's a lawyer representing the truth, and another representing BS, and both of them probably know full well which one is which. I wouldn't trust a lawyer to do much of anything, much less tell me about science.
Moreover, the book is dated. It apparently deals with DNA evidence, but that was 15 years ago, before we sequenced the human genome, and much of the chimps. The additional confirmation of evolution by comparing actual DNA base pair sequences has totally confirmed the earlier fossil evidence, which author Johnson critiqued in the book. This cross confirming evidence by completely different means is worth more than the sum of both scientific techniques.
Evolution is true. And as has always been the case, when faith challenges science head on, faith loses. Again.
When will religious people learn to stay away from science?
Ah, but I would say the same thing about the Bible. I'm saying we should agree to disagree, and not assume that if someone believes in God and evolution they have their theology wrong.
Tell me about it.
Another debate centered around [sic] Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis is whether or not these two species belong in the genus Homo or would be better suited in one of the other hominid genera. Some researchers feel that all species within the genus Homo should have characteristics, such as locomotor patterns, diet and body proportions, that make them more like modern humans than like the australopiths. These researchers feel that the characteristics of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are more ape-like than modern, a conclusion that would remove them from our genus. This would make Homo a monophyly (all species evolved from a common ancestor), rather than a polyphyly (the species evolved from more than one ancestor) as it is now thought to be. Other reseearchers think, however, that moving the two species out of the genus Homo does not solve the problem since the specimens do not easily fit into the genus Australopithecus as currently defined.
Examples of this sort of thing are legion. Nothing gratuitous about it.
Cordially
Since you made this claim and then did not reply to my question, I will ask again.
Are you still away from God?
My first comment tells why I don't believe the fossil record as it stand has disproved Darwin. I think punctuated equilibrium is a reasonable theory, especially given the near-nonexistence of the fossil record. There is a mega-pattern in the history of the planet, which can be seen even in our own time: species extinguish other species, and the process is accelerating and the number of species getting fewer all the time. For long periods of time there was such a thing as an ecological niche--thus the stability and the seeming lack of transitional species. Now even the ecological niches are being obliterated. Take a huge step back and look at the whole thing.
Some scientists have argued for putting some early habiline specimens into genus Australopithecus. There's intergrading up and down the hominid series.
Kind of hard to make separate created kinds out of that.
The skulls I posted are all modern species. They don't intergrade because they're the tips of the branches. As you go back in time, the branches grow closer and closer together, divergence run backwards. That's the signature of evolution. That's why things get hard to lump neatly into modern bins as you go back.
Self-replication is not a hurdle so easily discarded. You are leaving a galaxy size hole in your logic. Saying that natural phenomenon can develop self-replication in organisms is more fanciful than my sandcastle story.
Abiogenesis only applies to the simplest lifeform, not well developed mechanisms that perpetuate life. Self-replication does not fall under the category of abiogenesis.
Scientifically explain the development of self-replication. As I have said illogic has conquered Academia. Darwinian theory is a lump of sand on the beach.
We are talking about people who KNOW IT IS A LIE. The Apostles had to KNOW they were dieing for a lie.
These kids really believe what they are going to get.
I'm not seeking a convert to my beliefs; I'm heaping ridicule in the same way I heap ridicule on the notion that the Earth is 5,000 years old.
Actually, faith requires intelligence to operate. 80% of America shares the same faith now, and in the past, yet America is the leading superpower in the world. You figure the 80% are just dumb morons being directed and monitored by the 20% of enlightened atheists?
I've seen the enough of your "documentation", don't bother. No intelligent man, never having heard of macro-evolution, would sign on to it, being compelled thereby. It requires preconditioning.
To go from a warm pond to species diversity, mammals, insects and plants existing today, the "documentation" would exclusively fill every library in the nation. Every single fossil would be an obvious transitional form.
"Belief" is the right word. Evolutioners believe in macro-evolution because they want to and for no other reason. I figure somebody saw you coming.
How many more key components of viable life are you willing to cast aside?
Reproductive, digestive, circulatory, respiratory, the senses, temperature regulation, immunities..........
So they could have been mistaken, or the 9-11 bombers could have been mistaken, or both, or neither. In short, anyone's willingness to die for The TRVTH reveals nothing about the truth of The TRVTH.
It just wasn't a good, logical argument, OK?
Lurker placemarker
Saying the same about the Bible does not make it so.
There is no sane comparison between the two.
Ok.
Either their theology is wrong, or their belief about origins and how we got here is wrong.
They are truly mutually exclusive.
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.