Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

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.

Still listen please...

The Apostles LIVED AND WALKED WITH JESUS CHRIST, they were His contemporaries. They could not be deceived. EVERYONE who was alive during that time knew what happened. Many have said the only thing the Romans had to do, or the Jews for that matter, was present the body of Jesus Christ...and that would have settled it.

There is NOTHING in the record of history that such presentations ever happened.

These young, foolish and deceived boys and men of Islam did not know, walk and live with Mohammed or Allah.

Yes...they could be deceived.

There is no comparison.

"Nothing in ScubieNuc's post 510, and indeed nothing in either Genesis itself or the words of Jesus, describes the physical process of creation by God. The "how" of creation is simply not there."

That statement is true on it's face, but it's missing something. My post #510 was demonstateing that Jesus believed (Genesis) that Adam and Eve were the first humans that God created. Most evo's claim on Genesis, is that (Genesis) Adam and Eve is a myth. Jesus does not treat it as a myth. If He did, that would not inspire anyone.

Imagine having a problem with your marriage and you go to your counselor. After voiceing concerns about whether or not you should get divorced, the councelor tells you that Cinderella lived happily ever after, therefore you should too. That would be equivalant to what evo's claim Jesus was doing.

As far as the "how" goes, your mainly right. God spoke the words and it came into being. However, things like the timeline are documented. The phrase "evening and the morning" were a very precise timeline. To read in Millions or billions of years is to ignore this timeline.

I believe the literal reading of Genesis points you in the direction of God, but it doesn't explain everything. I do take origins information and compare it to Genesis, if the guess doesn't fit, then I don't accept it. However, nothing has yet proven Genesis wrong. I also don't believe Science will prove Genesis absolutely right either. God wants us to come to Him through faith, not science. IMHO.

Sincerely

Thank you for acknowledging I can read and think. Now think about this: from pond to diversity by blind chance, regardless of the time period, requires more faith than a belief in God or an Intelligent designer. Macro-evolution is on the same level as any religion in the world.

There more than a few dozen scientists that abhor macro-evolution. More than a few thinkers in other areas that think likewise. The reason you believe in evolution is because you want to.

Gravity is clear and present, observable in every way. Evolution is not, and can't be duplicated artificially.

We've actually documented quite enough to verify the theory and now we're filling in the gaps to figure out what's related to what and to answer some of the more compelling questions.

You have documented nothing except a preconditioned belief on existing phenomena.

Where did the precise interactions of DNA come from, do you think? Blind chance? No thank you. Doesn't pass the smell test.

The "zombification" idea is quite the streach.

Yeah. I said the same in the post.

The Roman charge against Him would have amounted to the leader of an insurection. They would have made sure he was dead.

Read more into the links on the puffer fish poisoning. Many times modern doctors have promounced victims dead, only to have them wake up hours later. A Roman soldier, having noted that Jesus didn't react to a spear would conclude he was dead.

Hanging on a cross is suffication. Even if you were on drugs, the lungs are collapsed and you die

And de-hydration, and blood loss, and all kinds of nasty things. It takes many hours to die on a cross. Check out the people who have themselves nailed to a cross in Latin American countries at Easter every year.

All of this was just speculation. But it's interesting that everything would fit with puffer paralysis, right down to taking him off the cross early.

This is because Jesus rescues us from the punishment for sin....death. Those "christians" that accept otherwise, are not understanding their own faith.

They merely have a different understanding of their faith than you.

Thanks for the civil conversation. Neither of us will convince the other, which is what almost always happens when people of different beliefs talk about them.

What I hope to convince you of, or at least some lurkers, is that forcing creationism, by whatever label, into public schools can do no positive good. And it can do a great harm by sparking the kind of discussion we've had here about whether the Bible is true at all. When a young person has such a conversation in a public school, away from parents and church people, it doesn't hold much hope for helping their faith. Some, certianly, will be forced to reject their faith as I was, when I had to make up my mind between physical evidence in front of me, and an old book that my family had followed for generations. That's not a good choice. The policy of non-confrontation with science that the Catholics have (which doesn't mean you have to believe evolution, just not argue about it outside of church) is a much more sound policy.

. . . forcing creationism, by whatever label, into public schools can do no positive good.

Who's talking about "force?" Is it a case of brainwashing when one suggests that organized matter performing specific functions may be the result of intelligent design?

And who are you to judge what constitutes a "positive good" when you cannot accept the authority of biblical texts but would water them down in the interest of self-preservation? Are you one of those people who would take an oath upon the biblical text while denying it says what it means and means what it says?

"What I hope to convince you of, or at least some lurkers, is that forcing creationism, by whatever label, into public schools can do no positive good."

There is a program in a public school by me that allows for open inspection into Itelligent Design and Evolution. From what I remember, it is an advanced elective, for students that already have their required biology, chemistry, etc. The class goes into the debates on the fossils, dna, transition species, etc. At the end of the class they must submit a report on what they believe based on the science.

There is little to no disscussion on what the Bible says, other then maybe a brief reference like..."some believe that the rock stratification can be explained by a world-wide flood." In the end they are graded on how they support their belief based on science, not Bible verses.

I think that is an excellent idea, and I don't see why more evolutionists wouldn't love to have that as an option. If the evidence clearly blows everything that the IDer's believe away, this would be a great place to do it.

I thank you as well for a civil conversation. I don't think it does either side any good, when the debate becomes an one-upmanship in naa-naa-naa I know more then you.

I wish you a good weekend.

Sincerely

Now think about this: from pond to diversity by blind chance, regardless of the time period, requires more faith than a belief in God or an Intelligent designer.

Absolutely not. That's the voice of ignorance speaking. Evolution is not about blind chance as much as you'd prefer to believe it to be. It's about incremental positive change leading to greater success. An understanding of the idea is far greater than any religion in the world because it is empirical. Those who believe can actually support their belief with facts and evidence. There is absolutely none of that in religion.

The reason you believe in evolution is because you want to.

No, I believe because it makes more logical sense and has more supporting data than any alternative theory. If an alternative comes along that bests it, I'm going to believe in that. Can you say that of religion? You certainly can’t of ID because it is clearly inferior no matter how you slice it.

Gravity is clear and present, observable in every way. Evolution is not, and can't be duplicated artificially.

The exact same is true of both. Have you ever produced gravity or seen anyone else do it? Both are equally observable in every way just one is counter to the bible and that ticks some people off at a base level.

Where did the precise interactions of DNA come from, do you think? Blind chance? No thank you. Doesn't pass the smell test.

It's not blind chance, but then we've already discussed that and proven quite clearly that you have no understanding whatsoever of what evolution is or how it works. Why argue from ignorance? Why put a rose in front of someone who can’t see or smell?

It's about incremental positive change leading to greater success.

Since when does incremental change without purposeful genesis and adjustment lead to greater success, unless it is successful decomposition?

You do create gravity by centrifugal or ascending force. But we're actually talking about the effects of gravity. Water running downhill is an effect of gravity and it is known by all that it's caused by gravity. You look around the world and see it as an effect of evolution without clear and present and irrefutable evidence thereof. You merely believe it's the result of evolution, fooled by "evidence" pointing to evolution only because evolution is presumed. I believe it's a result of a higher power. Occam's Razor cuts my way.

The results of any process not guided is the result of blind chance.

Jim Jones's contemporaries died with him; the Heaven's Gate Cult all went together; likewise the Branch Davidians...

Your comparison is hardly a good one.

Jim Jones cultists killed themselves (some were murdered by others of the same cult).

The Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves.

The government officials say the Branch Davidian leaders set fire to the compound and by this means killed themselves and almost everyone else in the cult.

You also mentioned the 9/11 bombers...who also killed themselves (in order to murder others).

In stark contrast, the apostles (and others) lived with the very one they wrote about or testified about (namely, Jesus Christ). None killed themselves except the very one who did 'not' believe. Instead the ones who were killed were killed by 'others' who were offended by their testimony.

Again, in contrast, the only one of the 12 who killed himself was Judas (Iscariot) who rejected Jesus Christ and betrayed him, hardly a true believer, just the opposite, he rejected the Truth.

The followers of Jesus who walked with Him were obviously not getting second-hand information, they were testifying of what they saw in many cases and were willing to die for what they knew to be the truth; (as they were eyewitnesses).

It is true, people will die for what they believe is the truth even if it is not, but they will not die for what they believe is a lie.

The Apostles were not making up lies about Jesus Christ and therefore dying for lies about Jesus Christ. They were eyewitnesses and had the firsthand truth, not hearsay.

Evolution is true. And as has always been the case, when faith challenges science head on, faith loses.

Most scientists are unaware of the fact that the Church was responsible for the birth of science in the West, and that science depends upon the Aristotelian worldview of Moderate Realism for its coherence.

For example, you say that "evolution is true." How do you define truth, and how is it that we can know truth, especially in light of the fact that you seem to reduce the universe to matter in motion?

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.

Me thinks that you should actually read what the theory of evolution says.

And who are you to judge what constitutes a "positive good" when you cannot accept the authority of biblical texts

I'm someone who was forced by the contradiction between scientific reality and the legalistic insistence on literal Genesis to choose between the two.

If you think forcing young people to make that choice is a good thing for your faith, go for it. I'm sure in a generation more of those people will be atheist like me than if you backed off as the Catholics have wisely done.

When religion confronts science, religion always loses. Always. There are always a few true believers, and Fester, you are one. But a large number of people will reject their religion if forced to choose, and that's a fact. I'm walking proof.

There is little to no disscussion on what the Bible says, other then maybe a brief reference like..."some believe that the rock stratification can be explained by a world-wide flood." In the end they are graded on how they support their belief based on science, not Bible verses. I think that is an excellent idea, and I don't see why more evolutionists wouldn't love to have that as an option.

I agree, because in the end I think more students will accept evolution in the end. This has been tried experimentally in a college (posted here last year), and more students accepted evolution who were presented both sides than if taught evolution alone.

I think students are already spring loaded to reject leftist drivel in college, and so I think many of them reject evolution because they've been told it's more of the same. But when presented the ID arguments, and then the scientific rebuttal to them, they end up accepting evolution.

Most scientists are unaware of the fact that the Church was responsible for the birth of science in the West

The "Church" during the dark ages was not the same "Church" during the enlightenment. Perhaps they called themselves the same name, but their beliefs changed.

Indeed, there is no single Christian "Church" today, if only because the Catholic disagrees with fundamentalist denominations on this very question of evolution vs. science.

I've told this story many times. Even the same Southern Baptist Church, where I took a class as a young person that said that there was no conflict between science and the Bible, now has rejected that idea and goes for literal Genesis interpretation. Which demonstrates that the arguments of some that science changes is hypocritical, because I've witnessed a single church that has changed it's teaching within my lifetime.

Since when does incremental change without purposeful genesis and adjustment lead to greater success, unless it is successful decomposition?

Some changes are effective at making the individual more likely to survive in some way (better vision, hearing, camouflage, ability to attract a mate etc.) Those tend to be passed on to the next generation. Some make the individual less likely to survive. Those are more often not passed along and eventually lost. That's how it works. You do create gravity by centrifugal or ascending force.

That's not gravity, it's force. That's like saying you are evolving animals by selective breeding. It's similar in result, but it's not the same.

You look around the world and see it as an effect of evolution without clear and present and irrefutable evidence thereof.

But that's just the thing. What you refuse to see or what you choose to ignore is what I do see as irrefutable evidence. You discard it just because it doesn't fit your preconceived world view. I accept it and integrate it into what I believe. When the evidence points to something else, that's what I'll believe.

That's the difference between faith and reason.

Occam's Razor cuts my way.

Not in the least. There is absolutely no evidence of a mythical being guiding everything in the universe, be it god, allah, yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In fact, adding said mythical being adds complexity to the situation. You've heard it before - who created god?

The Heavenly Father is sooooo good that He allows whomever to believe whatever they choose to believe. Not man, he needs to legislate supremacy of science over the Heavenly Father.

God's word stands upon it own, see it is the traditions of man that make the Word of God null and void.

So who are you really rejecting the Heavenly Father, whom you do not know, or the traditions of man? Genesis literally says that there were more than just two fully grown adult human beings formed in the beginning with multiple years between the two events.

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.