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.

[joyspring777]

"Yes, those Secular Humanists are *them*. We all know that *they* are evil."

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not call it that way. It is not Us vs Them in my mind. I know many creationists, I have exchanged emails with them on and off this board. I know of none who hold evos in such a fashion.

Perhaps you hold creationists in this fashion, and find it impossible to believe that turnabout is not the same. You are wrong.

"Hate for some imaginary religion called secular humanism."

Take that up with the SCOTUS. Twice ruled, I agree with the SCOTUS on these.

I don't "hate" anyone other than the supreme adversary of our souls...and I am not sure about that. It is more pity and despisement for having seen his handiwork (destruction and corruption) in the lives of people I know.

Perhaps you "hate" us? Why are you bringing that up?

[joyspring777]

Nope. Doesn't have to be multiculturalism.

Shift your paradigm friend. You apparently are stuck in the past.

[Filo]

Prove it.

I'm not even going to leave this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1596261/posts?page=264#264

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1596261/posts?page=271#271

And those are just from one page. I don't need any more than that. You, on the other hand, haven't posted a single fact.

Did you read any of that when it was posted? Did you understand any of it? Trust me, I have more than a clue about how evolution works.

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?

Again, you're talking about a tiny minority. Doctorates or no, they don't represent the scientific community at large.

Want proof: Start here at this 'thumper site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

Then check out the Steves: http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

And don't waste everyone's time with empty arguments. My religion has lasted thousands of years. If your's doesn't get its shit together, it's headed for the ash heap.

Don't confuse logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence with religion. There is simply no common ground.

[joyspring777]

Maybe not the ones you know, but at the top of the movement that is acceptable.

[joyspring777]

Excuse me. Just because one court in one part of the land rules one way...does not mean it is the law of the land.

Check with your legal jurisprudence department. You now see a court in one state as ruling for the whole state. What power!!

Never intended by the founders. You apparently have too much of a SCOTUS mentality.

[joyspring777]

You now see a court in one state as ruling for the whole state. What power!!


CORRECTION:

You now see a court in one state as ruling for the whole COUNTRY. What power!!

[joyspring777]

You are wrong.


Well documented statistics on the amount of one on one face time with most families in this culture is scarily minimal.

[Condorman]

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.

Not necessarily. The Dover ruling was made in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Only lower courts in that district (maybe about 2 dozen PA counties) are bound by that ruling. The court's opinion will likely be persuasive authority to other districts, but courts in Kansas, say, or even in other Pennsylvania Federal Districts are not obliged by that decision.

[joyspring777]

That is your decision. Not mine.

I am NOT calling you a nazi. I am examining how successful the inculcation of a mindset was in which a state controls all the input.

When one mindset, secular humanism, controls all the input in an american public school system...no doubt what you will get out of it. Secular Humanists!!

[joyspring777]

Um....let us see.

More than a few drug users in the 60s proved to us that if one jumps from a hotel balcony...you will fall very far and create a very bloody mess....

Gravity is not truth???????

We know with 100% truth that gravity will put you on the ground, unless you exert a different force opposing it.

We know with 100% certainty that a field left to itself with head with absolute certainty towar disorder. Weeds and every kind of thing will eventually grow there.

One can be certain if it left alone for 10 years, we will NOT find a neat row of corn growing.

[joyspring777]

In the classroom my friend...

fearful??


With your arrogant confidence...you should say bring it on...in the classrooms.

[joyspring777]

That is NOT what I did. See my response to the emotional kneejerk response of the first poster who indicated thus.

[joyspring777]

Because is goes counter to established knowledge.

As one said yesterday...we have undeniable space photos to prove such things ridiculous.

Truth is truth. The earth is NOT FLAT. No turtles underneath us.

[Condorman]

We know with 100% truth that gravity will put you on the ground, unless you exert a different force opposing it.
We know with 100% certainty that a field left to itself with head with absolute certainty towar disorder. Weeds and every kind of thing will eventually grow there.
One can be certain if it left alone for 10 years, we will NOT find a neat row of corn growing.

Are you so certain of your probabilities? For example, let's say I flip a coin 20 times in a row. Which is the more likely outcome:

A) HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
B) HTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTHTHH

[Tokra]

As one said yesterday...we have undeniable space photos to prove such things ridiculous. Truth is truth. The earth is NOT FLAT. No turtles underneath us.

Truth is truth - life forms evolved on this planet.

If not - just how do you explain all the different breeds of dogs? Many different breeds did not exist 200 years ago, but they do now. Every different breed of dog was NOT created as such. Mankind has bred them for different traits. When it happens by itself in Nature - its called evolution.

Truth IS truth.

[narby]

["I agree, because in the end I think more students will accept evolution in the end."] That's not what you posted before.

What I think is the best method to present evolution, vs. what is constitutional are different things. I do think such an approch might be good at a college level, and I believe that constitutional issues are different at that level (why, I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that being the case).

[Coyoteman]

They all have doctorates. Do you? If so, is it in Evolutionary Biology?

Hey, I got one. Not Evolutionary Biology, but half was Physical Anthropology (fossil man and human osteology).

This is the type of thing I studied (some nice folks in this picture). Some transitionals (right, they are not missing). Can you tell whch is which?

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[joyspring777]

So...knowing not whether you consider yourself a scientist (I have indicated I am not):

You are asserting gravity is not truth.

You are asserting the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) from order to disorder is not true.

http://www.entropylaw.com/

and you try to relate or compare this to coin tossing?

[joyspring777]

Apples and oranges....get real.

What do you do with the quotes in post #6?

I will repost them here for you:

Even the noted Harvard paleontologist, Stephan J. Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic Pace" Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.)

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." (Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.)

Or as the world-famous evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, noted:

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' "

[Quark2005]

You are asserting the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) from order to disorder is not true.

Physicists always get a good laugh when thermodynamics is invoked to defend creationism (not that the other arguments here are any better...)