Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[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.

[William Terrell]

"Survival of the fittest" is a reasonable doctrine, but organs in transition from one function to another tend not to aid survival. Another thorn in the side of macro-evolution is the irreducible complexity of many structures. Remember, we're talking about from a warm pond to many diverse complex units.

We're talking about the effect of gravity being an indication of its existence.

Anyone who wants to believe in something forthrightly occludes evidence to the contrary, and limits interpretation of evidence that has alternative interpretations. I sure you do see what's around you as irrefutable evidence of evolution, but there are alternative explanations at least as valid and proof-worthy.

Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. When I look at the vast interaction of mammals, insects and plants, each a complex unit we cannot understand, much less duplicate, I tend to think of an intelligent source. Then there is the mystery of life, which gets going and keeps going.

Duplicate that life from inert matter and I might be impressed.

Who created God? OK, who created the sequoia, natural selection? Remember, all we started with was pond scum; nothing else.

Oh, about that issue of non-understanding and ignorance, how many of the 500 scientists that signed the dissent from Darwinism do you reckon don't understand science, the scientific method and are ignorant of the "evidence" of macro-evolution?

[joyspring777]

The three examples you cited are all people who went over a cliff with the LIVING leader in their presence.

The difference between those examples and the Apostles is Jesus Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected.

Now, the only thing that sets Him aside from any others is the last part...the resurrection and ascension into heaven.

IF the Apostles knew these two pieces were a lie (anyone could have proven this a lie...in fact many would want to...all they had to do was produce the body of Jesus Christ), there is no way they would have been able to do the things they did PLUS died ignominous deaths. People just don't do that when they know there is a body somewhere.

When sword is put to their head, a cross presented to be crucified, they would fold in some fashion.

[joyspring777]

Good post.


Here is a thought.

If evo is true, how can we know anything to be true. We are all just randomly assembled atoms and molecules and could foul up at any moment.

Nothing can be true.

[joyspring777]

As I have said illogic has conquered Academia.


True. True. You can discuss anything with most of these folks...they are so full of themselves with arrogance.

[joyspring777]

Can't I mean you can't discuss anything with most of them generally.

[Filo]

"Survival of the fittest" is a reasonable doctrine, but organs in transition from one function to another tend not to aid survival.

There goes that lack of understanding again. . . Another thorn in the side of macro-evolution is the irreducible complexity of many structures.

Another canard. Easily and often proved quite wrong.

Remember, we're talking about from a warm pond to many diverse complex units.

Yes, exactly. That part, at least, you seem to understand although you clearly don't have a clue as to how it might have worked.

but there are alternative explanations at least as valid and proof-worthy.

Name one, just one, theory that has even a fraction of the evidential support of evolution. You can't.

Oh, about that issue of non-understanding and ignorance, how many of the 500 scientists that signed the dissent from Darwinism do you reckon don't understand science, the scientific method and are ignorant of the "evidence" of macro-evolution?

Clearly most if not all of them.

So, out of the several million scientists alive today (keep in mind that many of these 500 aren't actually familiar with anything related to evolution such as biology, anthropology, etc.) you've found .05%. Congratulations!

[Aquinasfan]

The "Church" during the dark ages was not the same "Church" during the enlightenment.

The dogmatic definition of "creation from nothing" was promulgated around the year 1200, many centuries before the Enlightenment. From this teaching Buridan developed his theory of impetus, which greaty influenced Newton.

Perhaps they called themselves the same name, but their beliefs changed.

No teaching promulgated as infallible has ever changed. There are several levels of Church teaching, of varying degrees of authority.

§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."

2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

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.

There are many Christian Churches, but it is logically possible that one is the true Church that Christ founded, even if other churches contain much truth.

Non-Catholic Christian churches are largely divided over theological teachings, not scientific theories.

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.

That may be true for that particular church. I don't know.

But the Catholic Church has always permitted a great degree of latitude regarding theories of human origins, going back to Augustine, at least, whose theories could be described as evolutionary. Catholics must believe that God created the universe from nothing, and that the human race contracted Original Sin from humanity's original parents. Blind, materialistic evolution is also categorically rejected. The rest is open to speculation.

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.

Scientific theories are always inductive, so they can never be certain, only probable, and highly probable. Some theological beliefs can be deduced from experience and first principles, so these beliefs can be known with certainty. Other beliefs are deduced from divine revelation and can only be accepted on faith.

It's possible that this church posited its teaching as probable, rather than certain. Many arguments based on Scripture cannot be known with absolute certainty, while they may be probable or even highly probable.

[joyspring777]

A thought:

Science as we know and understand the forces at work and the data that we have FOR NOW.

and faith in Christ Jesus and the Word of God as we know and understand the deeper things to be revealed as we grow.

There used to be wall poster by Argus years ago:

It said....All I have seen brings me to trust God for all I have not seen.

There is no need to jettison in impatience the beliefs one holds simply because FOR NOW the pieces don't seem to fit.

To quote a character from "Return to Snowy River"

"It doesn't have to be a choice."

Patience Patience Patience. Ah but our culture and us as individuals want it now, and desperately want things to fit. We are, at our root, impatient.


There was a time as recently as less than a hundred years ago that archaelogy had no record of some of the towns and cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

Many evos and athiests pointed and said SEE...NOT REAL.

Since then, many towns and cities have been unearthed to prove the earlier chapters of Genesis true.

Humph!!!...said the athiest...but if he or she were honest their reaction should have been Hmmmm...what do I do with that?

Lastly, I have a ministry tape that is well over 20 years old from a counseling training session I attended. A absolutely lovable Texan man related a plane trip.

A lawyer passenger pointed out to my Texan friend, "How can you believe in a Jesus who talks about the four corners of the earth when He is supposed to have created it? The earth is round."

My texan friend said good question. Over the next year he investigated this for his own honesty and integrity. He indicated that science tells us that the firmament or non-water portions of the earth...if one stands in Israel...one would actually and generally move out to the four highest points on the earth.

He got back with this athiest lawyer and related the data. He said it was a brief conversation.

Trust the Creator for all that we don't know...that in His time He will make all things known and understandable. Be patient.

[bondserv]

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

So you deny that evolutionary processes developed the ability for organisms to self-replicate?

Are there any other denials you are willing to place on the table?

[VadeRetro]

It's clear that the evidence doesn't matter in an attempt to prove a false theory. If we were evolving and becoming better why does hatred, wars and wholesale slaughter continue from the beginning of recorded history? I think our conscience that is given to us is just so painful at times that we want to deny it's giver.

Considering the post you are responding to, and also the post of yours to which I was responding, the above is a non-sequitur followed by a change of subject.

You don't have the goods for your claim. You said evidence reasonably to be expected isn't there. All the evidence reasonably to be expected IS there.

[narby]

Not man, he needs to legislate supremacy of science over the Heavenly Father.

Garbage. No one is saying science is supreme over faith, because they cannot be compared against each other at all. They are different subjects.

All anyone is saying is that science classes should teach science. And public schools should not teach religion (which is a practical policy, because otherwise all religions would have to be taught).

Is that so difficult to understand?

[VadeRetro]

Your comparison is hardly a good one.

The proffered syllogism was this:

1. No one is willing to die for a lie.
2. The apostles were willing to die for their faith.
3. Ergo: their faith was not a lie.

One bad egg spoils the omelet. People can be deluded. And to appeal to the non-deluded nature of the apostle's faith is to beg the question. That is, the correctness of their belief is what the syllogism is trying to prove.

Furthermore, the esteemed logician who offered that fallacy is the one who vouched for Kent Hovind's presentations as "infallible" in their logic.

I pointed all this out a long time ago on this thread. I'm getting a lot of smoke-screening and obfuscation, but I'm not wrong.

[narby]

Trust the Creator for all that we don't know...that in His time He will make all things known and understandable. Be patient.

I was patient. It took me longer than some, but I finally figured it out that God doesn't exist. I've never seen Him, never heard Him, never experienced Him, except in my vivid imagination brought on by emotional presentations.

Once you understand this, there's no going back. Once you see how the magic works, you will always see the trick to it.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Last night my husband and I watched this show called Naked Science. The topic was the creation of the Earth, and the theories were so absurd we were astonished. Anyhow they had just theorized, although they presented it as fact, that the Earth had almost no water in its early days. "Where did our water come from?" was the question as it went to commercial break. So during commercial I came up with the most outlandish theory my creative little brain could conjure up. I explained to my husband that a comet, or some cosmic disturbance must have pulled a band of frozen space particles close to the Earth and dropped them on us. They would have melted and become water. We laughed and then proceeded to watch and see what the evolutionary scientist had dreamed up. What do you know! To our surprise, I was right! Turns out you don't need a doctorate to figure evolution out, just dream up the most outrageous, impossible solution to fit their theories and you've got it!

[Just mythoughts]

"Garbage. No one is saying science is supreme over faith, because they cannot be compared against each other at all. They are different subjects."


Oh really, exactly where did you get the authority to separate the subjects. Your dogma is faith based upon supposed primordial hot bowls of soup, not one shred of evidence they ever existed.

"All anyone is saying is that science classes should teach science. And public schools should not teach religion (which is a practical policy, because otherwise all religions would have to be taught)."


No that is not ALLLLLL that is being said, first and foremost your science classes are required to teach a Darwinist scientific methodology. Exact approach some religionists teach their doctrine, some flesh man sits atop the heap.

[joyspring777]

All anyone is saying is that science classes should teach science. And public schools should not teach religion (which is a practical policy, because otherwise all religions would have to be taught).



This assertion of all faith would have to be taught everywhere is true only in the current paradigm of public education.

Charter or privatize all schools. Do away with "free" public education and turn the schools over.

What we would find is the satanists would have VERY LITTLE schools, evos (secular humanists), IDers, Creationists, Bhuddists, etc. would have their own schools to some degree.

DECENTRALIZE and take the power and politics OUT OF IT.

[joyspring777]

Write your landmark book and publish it across the continents.

Our friend figures out that God does not exist.

I guess the author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict Volumes 1 and 2, which encompasses hundreds of pages missed your work.

There is an adversary that wishes all of us to be fumbling in the dark.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters?

[joyspring777]

Oh...BTW...there is nothing but vestiges, echos and cobwebs of a true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in most Roman Catholic circles.

I grew up there.

[RightWingNilla]

Genesis literally says that there were more than just two fully grown adult human beings

More than two?

[Just mythoughts]

Well but of course there had to be more than two fully grown adults created in the beginning. Man likes to claim the two different days we are told about as different perspectives of one creation of man, however, they ignore that at the end of the seventh day there was NO man to till the ground.

Further DNA says that it is impossible for all peoples to have come from only two human beings. Course now that would make some creationists evolutionists to claim that all humanity did come from just two human beings.

There are two different days of creation described, and Peter tell us that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

Genesis does not tell us when the "beginning" began, wherein the heavens and earth were created. What we are told is likened to a supernatural environmental superfund clean up and man is then placed in flesh bodies.