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.
Who said species had to evolve on this planet? I have it on good advise that all species evolved on other planets and were dropped off here in a series of planet stocking visits by the mother ship. In fact we have reason to believe they have visited us again and deposited a newer version of the human species homo erectus. This new species homo brokebackedus has started to spread out from Hollywood to the east but is expected to succome to yet another species, Homo Mormonus, which is breeding much faster and speading westward from Utah. Deny it you want, but I saw the pictures on TV just last week.
Oh, I see. So, it's OK for a Darweiner to say "ignore the lack of fossil evidence" on one hand and then turn around and say "here, look at this fossil!"???
How long does it take you to spin that fast? 5 minutes? 10 seconds?
So we should doubt the existence of god then.
Ha Darwinism was not nor has it ever been self sufficient, see once Darwinist got themselves a legally accepted, government funded theory, they lost any ability to claim natural selection and survival of the fittest."
Wow, there's certainly no way to argue with that cogent logic. Of course that depends on what you said and what you think it might mean. I certainly have no way to know.
The non-Darwin side needs to shed their inferiority complex and takes a martial arts approach of using the force against itself.
Have school students find the holes in ID and other non-Darwin theories. Those students will then study ID critically. They will quickly realize that there are big holes in all theories and (scientifically) we are really clueless about the distant past.
One could use the same standards for theories of our origins as we in IT use for software QA/testing. In QA we measure to a known level of defects and lack of defects in the software based on the amount and type of testing done. If that methodology were applied to any and all theories about our origin, it would quickly be seen that we are clueless.
> So, it's OK for a Darweiner to say "ignore the lack of fossil evidence"...
The only people saying anything of the kind are the Cretinists, out to spread their message of dumbth. Evolutionists *never* even suggest "ignore the lack of evidence;" quite the contrary. Notice all the paleontologists out there digging up even more evidence? Unlike the Cretinists, they're actually *looking*.
Darwinists needed supremes to give them credibility, a house to worship in, which use to be called a schoolhouse, and taxation of the masses to keep the electricity powering the ventilators that makes death look alive."
Nothing, not a thing, you said above is true. Enjoy your delusion.
Um, ok. Evidently, you're having trouble following along. I was responding to a post from a supporter of Darwinian Evolution. His quote was:
"For anyone to assume the so-called fossil record can tell us anything on this issue is the ultimate in hubris."
What part of my exchange with him are you having trouble grasping?
Placeholder
"Marx is nowhere near dead enough for me, and Gramsci is as bad, or worse."
Amen, brother. And neo-Darwinism is nothing but Gramsci-ism in scientific drag.
Thank you! Yeah, the celebs are a blast but I usually make an azz out of myself. My brother says I should take a camera and take pics but I don`t know how I would explain that. Tom Clancy really blew my mind because I just eat up everything that guy writes, I mean the second he publishes something I buy it and just eat it up, and I could hardly say one word to him when he got into my cab. It was like the Messiah getting into my cab and I made a total jackass out of myself and to top it off I got lost driving! It was just unreal, no assistants, no limo, he was just there on Madison ave all by himself totally down to earth. I think he knew I knew who he was and appreciated the fact that I didn`t go nuts as he gave me a good tip. Drew Barrymore on the other hand broke my heart (not intentionally though), my God, talk about love at first sight! lol! She basically mind raped me, wanted to know everything about me then it was all over. I guess I`m just a celebrity nut. I tell you, even though NYC is the liberal celebrity cesspool of the east coast, they really are cool people. The biggest pricks are the ones who are filthy rich and not well known. I had one the other day who I picked up on Central Park east (5th avenue) who decided to pay me a $9.50 fare in dimes and nickels because "You people like change"....If you want to see more of what it is like, read this girls page.
http://newyorkhack.blogspot.com/
I don't wet my pants but, then again, I don't drink. Once again, you have yet to stumble upon even a single truth. You call evolution an ideology, no, it is a scientific theory, well supported by testable experiments, modern genetics and a century or more of observation. You claim it is supported by our tax dollars(?) yet you turn a blind eye to the tax breaks given to Churches.
Enjoy your old book, when you can prove a syllable of it, write back
Ash placeholder
You said:
A scientist is one who uses the scientific method to learn about the world around him. There is no special definition of scientist for any one particular discipline.
I don't struggle with this definition. The problem lies with your associates in your idealogy/religion.
It is they who redefine a scientist, and say they don't have to debate other scientists because they "pontificate" that they are not scientists (despite practice or education credentials) unless they believe in evolution.
This, my friend, is defining away any debate...and is hiding...plain and simple.
Evolutionists are not high minded????
Gimme a break!
Actually I am curious who is it that is against Evolution? The Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to be so I am curious which Christian religious groups are pushing ID and creationism as science.
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.