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.
"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."
Very few plants or animals were fossilized - an infinitesimal number. Lack of a particular fossil proves nothing. There were billions of plants and animals that lived and died and were not fossilized. Most organic material decays - very little of it was soaked in water with mineral deposits that slowly replaced the cell structures to become a fossil for someone to accidentaly stumble across 10 million years later. There are very few pieces of cloth or material that survived from the Roman Empire. Does that prove the Romans went naked? Your logic would say so.
Now I've answered your question, now you answer mine:
If everything was created as is, and nothing has evolved, then how do you explain all the different breeds of dogs (or cats, or cows, or horses) that Mankind has purposely bred?
If you let dogs breed without human intervention, within not many generations, all dogs will revert back to the original dog form - which has short pointed ears, a curved tail and a ridge of fur along the backbone. That is what the original dog looked like before man bred different breeds for different uses.
How does a Creationist explain that? Did not God create all animals just as they are?
Once again, I am a firm believer in God - I believe God designed and initiated the process of evolution, just like he designed and initiated the earths complicated climate and weather patterns.
God can do anything - including designing evolution.
Darwin isn't a leftist. Creationism isn't rightist. The first is science, the second in mythology.
Use them as excellent examples of quote mining.
Save for later.
So the mechanism of self-replication was an Act of God? Are you saying life's ability to manage energy is also an Act of God?
666-- placemarker of the beast
I see.
Clearly you believe there were in fact more than two. Perhaps many, many more than two.
How many do you think there were? (Just provide an approximate value).
You are rude and silly, not worth the time of day.
I don't agree. That was not my thought or quote.
You don't believe that there were more than two? Why not?
You called?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And coming from someone who has yet to make her first non-ignorant post yet ...
Shame, shame, shame on ...
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Evolution can proceed just fine if there is theistic creation, natural development, or seeding of building blocks from space. In fact, somebody posted, a while back, five different origins, and evolution worked with all five.
Why is it that you believe there is a disconnect between the manner of origin and the process of subsequent evolution?
"I see.
Clearly you believe there were in fact more than two. Perhaps many, many more than two.
How many do you think there were? (Just provide an approximate value)."
I honestly do not know, but a guess and only a guess is 4 to 7 different couples. Reason, God said what He created was good, that means that none of His children are inferior to Him.
Ezekiel 18: 4 Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: .......
"Why is it that you believe there is a disconnect between the manner of origin and the process of subsequent evolution?"
Logic says a process has an origin.
Logic says a process has an origin.
But logic does not specify that origin.
And the process of evolution can work with any origin I can think of.
So, the fact of an origin does not describe the subsequent process of evolution. Theistic creation? Sure, works fine.
Panspermia (space)? Sure, works fine.
Natural origins? Sure, works fine.
The theory of evolution describes what occurs after self-replicating organisms get down to self-replicating.
Do you think thats enough DNA?
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.