>Look harder
I see what you mean:
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.
I am laughing my ass off right now.....LoL!
Aren't you glad FR is up and running again?
Don Kennedy was a Stanford faculty member (my alma mater) for years before becoming University President and, later, Editor of Science Magazine. He was a smarmy politician first and a scientist second.
His advocacy here lends nothing to the overall Darwin versus ID argument. He is one that will hold on long past the time that others are convinced that Darwin's theory is bankrupt.
Do you see the moon in front of you? Is it on the ash-heap of history? Do you see the wind? Do you see cellular activity? There’s gonna be a lot of ash-heaps, I suppose.
Heh, thank you for that image. I've never seen that one before. Cute. :)
It takes an amazing degree of self-deception to call Darwin a pillar of liberalism. Just ask a social-Darwinist. The notions of survival-of-the-fittest and natural selection are compelling images of capitalism whereas a loving, caring Father-Creator is the perfect image of the doting socialist state.
Yeah, what happened? I thought it was hacked or something. I couldn`t get in.
Darwinistic evolutionists have been waiting for decades for the "rotting corpse of Christianity" to fall of its own weight...
that has occurred either!
> There’s gonna be a lot of ash-heaps, I suppose.
Yes, especially when, as with these clueless Creationists, they refuse to look and understand. Oh, well. Society will always need a large number of drudges.
> Analogies like this demonstrate serious scientific illiteracy.
Don't feel bad. You can always learn... you need not remain illiterate forever.
Thanks. I'll have to use that next time a Darweiner tries to use a fossil as evidence. :-)
>Look harder
I see what you mean:
> I'll have to use that next time a Darweiner tries to use a fossil as evidence.
Yes, snappy yet inaccurate quotes are often a better way to win a debate than actual facts.
I just came back from a trip to NYC. I stopped off at the Museum of Natural History and took in the Darwin exhibit there. It's extremely well done and highly educational. For a guy who's on the way out he seems to be doing OK.
Untrue statement. The truth or non-truth of Christianity is wholly irrelevant to the TOE.
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.