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.
Prove it.
Easily and often proved quite wrong.
Prove it.
That part, at least, you seem to understand although you clearly don't have a clue as to how it might have worked.
Neither do you.
Clearly most if not all of them.
They all have doctorates. Do you? If so, is it in Evolutionary Biology? Do you know them? Several million scientists are alive today. Are you saying that all believe n macro-evolution? How do you know?
My religion has lasted thousands of years. If your's doesn't get its shit together, it's headed for the ash heap.
Just reporting the definition of science vs. faith.
Your dogma is faith based upon supposed primordial hot bowls of soup, not one shred of evidence they ever existed.
Biogenesis and Evolution are separate subjects. How many times has someone posted that fact to you?
first and foremost your science classes are required to teach a Darwinist scientific methodology
No they're not. The court merely said they couldn't teach religion. ID and creationism is religion.
Exact approach some religionists teach their doctrine, some flesh man sits atop the heap.
What are you talking about?
The Scriptures plainly indicate that death (exceedling necessary over billions of years for evo beliefs) did not occur of any kind until Adam and Eve fell.
Death before Adam? If so, it undermines the rest of Scripture....
So...we trust the Creator for all we don't understand yet.
That's multiculturalism. Sure, that's worked well in the EU.
What's the problem with teaching science in science class and teaching your faith in sunday school?
The arrogance that creationists bring that demands that their particular faith be taught to every school child is just overwhelming. No one is demanding that evolution be taught in your church. How come you're demanding your faith be taught to others who don't share it?
ID and creationism is religion.
Not a fact. ID has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS. Were the monkey trials ever debated at the SCOTUS level???
Your evo science is based on a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF FAITH...not fact.
The public schools have a faith...it is called Secular Humnism...whose god is Man in the middle of the universe...or at least at the top of your food chain.
The arrogance that creationists bring that demands that their particular faith be taught to every school child is just overwhelming. No one is demanding that evolution be taught in your church. How come you're demanding your faith be taught to others who don't share it?
There you go again.
It is arrogance that creationists say "side by side".
It is NOT ARROGANCE for evos to say ONLY OURS---NO OTHER FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES.
Hmmm.
Creationists ask that they BOTH be taught, since they are both based on theory and faith.
And it may never rule on it. The Dover ruling was so thorough and complete that I doubt a higher court will take it. And until one does, Dover stands.
What's the problem with teaching science in science class and teaching your faith in sunday school?
I believe it is Dewey who has been attributed to have said:
"Let them teach their Sunday school stuff, while we have their kids 30+ hours a week in public school."
No competition.
Indeed. Afraid of competition, they are.
How is evo exclusivism any different than Nazism being plowed into the minds of german youth? What would one expect but for all those german kids to grow up and do what they did?
Dewey knew that if he ruled the secular, he rules it all.
Yes, those Secular Humanists are *them*. We all know that *they* are evil.
It's funny how any emotionally organized group of people always have a demon. The commies hated the capitalists. Big labor hates management. Lefties hate Bush. And when all is said and done, and logic fails, one can always fall back on raw hate. Hate for some imaginary religion called secular humanism.
No, they're not.
Garbage. Your ignoring time at home, which completely overwhelms school time.
Ok. Well, there's the N word. Once the N word comes out, any rational discussion is over. I have better things to do.
In fact, we don't know anything with 100% certainty. See Bayesian analysis.
They have done so nicely by themselves.
Sez who? Why should the fossil record contain "near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different transitional forms"?
Not everything that ever lived has been preserved in fossilized form. In fact, very little of it has.
That statement is absurd.
When the Creationists (as they always do) start calling other Nazi's, Godwin's Law may be invoked.
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.