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.

[Coyoteman]

Utter nonsense! What you godless, materialist, commie, sodomite, kiddie-porn producing, lake-of-fire-bound fools fail to realize, because your pathetic minds are mired in this base world of flesh, is that your "science" isn't applicable to the world before the Fall. I pity you. You will get what you deserve in the life to come, and I shall laugh! I am laughing now. LOL!!!!!

[/creationism mode]

(whoops, sorry; won't happen again)

[Just mythoughts]

"The theory of evolution describes what occurs after self-replicating organisms get down to self-replicating."


What made organisms decide they needed to get down and self-replicate? Is evolution alll about sex?

[Coyoteman]

Is evolution alll about sex?

I guess you figured it out.

Now, please don't tell anyone. Its supposed to be a secret.

[Just mythoughts]

"Do you think thats enough DNA?"


I do not know. I do not think the DNA database is comprehensive enough to answer that question.

But then again what I look for in the DNA research is not exactly put in the kind of format looking to answer that specific question.

[VadeRetro]

What made organisms decide they needed to get down and self-replicate? Is evolution alll about sex?

Not for jellyfish.

[PatrickHenry]

I guess you figured it out.

Actually, for the first 2 billion years, there was nothing but masturbation. Then the devil instructed creatures in the evil ways of the flesh. The rest is history. But you can save yourself from this cruel trick of evolution. This man seems to have seen the light: Man severs own penis, throws it at officers.

[RightWingNilla]

"As long as the penis is placed on ice and reattached within a few hours, the success is usually pretty good," Bales said.

[Coyoteman]

"Do you think thats enough DNA?"

I do not know. I do not think the DNA database is comprehensive enough to answer that question.

The mtDNA database is comprehensive enough to show a pretty good picture of modern human migrations for some 70,000 years.

Lots of details to be worked out, but the overall picture is taking shape.

Oppenheimer has a moving map of this on a website, but I don't remember the URL. Google Oppenheimer and mtDNA and I bet it will be in the top three.

[PatrickHenry]

If you want to escape from the satanic flesh-trap of evolution, you gotta really fling the thing.

[phantomworker]

You're in good form tonight, Patrick!!

Happy St. Patrick's Day!!! Luck o'the Irish to ya!

[William Terrell]

Speculation, even that which sounds reasonable, is speculation. There is no proof. Allow me an example. You can settle on a legal theory and go to the books and find plenty of excerpts to support your theory.

That does not mean you prevail in court. You'll find that your desires causes occulsions of the parts that didn't support your theory. A judge will point that out and you won't be able to argue with him.

We are not about facts here, we are about belief. The number of people who believe something is no evidence that it is the truth.

We're not talking aobut "overwhelming evidence", but for those who want to believe. You don't seem to grasp that you are forced to start with a warm pond, presumably sterile since there would be no microorganisms yet, spark actual self sustaining life, and process through to an amazing diversity of different life, plant, insect and mammal, most with structures that require all parts to be functioning at once to exist.

No, you don't have close to enough evidence to support a hypothesis.

You simply want to believe it.

[RightWingNilla]

I do not think the DNA database is comprehensive enough to answer that question.

What more information do you think the database requires in order to answer this question?

[phantomworker]

[Coyoteman]

We are not about facts here, we are about belief.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

Science, and evolution, are about facts and theories. Permit me to quote:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

[RightWingNilla]

If you want to escape from the satanic flesh-trap of evolution, you gotta really fling the thing.

Did the cop catch it?

[PatrickHenry]

Éireann go Brách

[JABBERBONK]

How about recent finds such as some fish, and most recently a species of rat that was thought to have gone extinct some 11 million years ago? The amount of evolutionary change in said rat in the last 11 million years?.....NONE!

[PatrickHenry]

Did the cop catch it?

With his teeth. It seems he had just seen Brokeback Mountain. Poor fellow, had to resign from the force.

[William Terrell]

You show me graphics and a lot of meaningless terms. Con men have used this technique for centuries. Show me precisely what this is supposed to prove, explain it clearly, define the terms. If changes in the graphic representations indicate something, then point out precisely which changes and what they are supposed to prove.

[PatrickHenry]

700