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.
Saying it is so....doesn't make it so.
I could NOT disagree with your statement more.
poorly written ad hominem attack.
I'm so confused. Which ones are missing?
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.)
Our Secular Humanist government does a real good job of making it look nice.
That bolsters the argument in the article.
Why don't those museums allow displays to argue the special creationist view?
For that matter, why do whole communities (i.e. Cincinnati, Ohio) go to such great lengths to even deny the use of land for such a demonstration of the case for scientific creationism?
The evos WANT NO COMPETITION! Then use the state to block and fund their own to the exclusion of all others.
Just what I dislike...a person with no seriousness that makes debate impossible.
Grow up!
Well said...all thoughts on origins come down to faith...
faith in secular humanism,
OR
faith in special creation.
Both are faith!
I could NOT disagree with your statement more."
Since you are either unable to or unwilling to assail a single element of my logic, why did you bother to respond?
I am not following you.
Very cool blog. One of your pics has my office building in it. I will make sure not to pay you all in dimes next time :)
> What part of my exchange with him are you having trouble grasping?
I'm trying to understand why you think he said anythign like "ignore the evidence."
Are you sure?
"Dover CARES swept the race for school board Tuesday defeating board members who supported the curriculum change being challenged in federal court."
Pro-ID school board members in Dover, PA swept from office
______________________________
Presidential politics: Dover is in York County, which supported George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 114,621 votes and John Kerry received 63,628 votes. [my note: that's about 64% for Bush]
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/politicalInfo.php?locIndex=275620
________________________________
Here are three GOP office holders who are distancing themselves from ID:
Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Jeb Bush on science standards and teaching ID:
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547174/posts
And here is Governor Taft backing away from ID:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572692/posts
__________________________________
Utah House kills evolution bill [snip] "But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday."
Ping (just random letters that got here by pure chance).
Well, much like the TOE, there’s no real proof for your theory. So go for it! Believe what you want, and mock, persecute, and out-shout the unbelievers!
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.
homo brokebackedus, like dirty dishes in the sink or ludicrously dressed youth, will always be with us. They sorta spring up from holes in the ground.
Evangelical Christianity in its non-denominational forms for the most part.
Catholicism will not make up its mind because it cannot afford to alienate any more of its verbal adherants.
Mainline protestants like Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. have generally surrendered on all fronts to coexist or make peace with secular humanism.
It is the non-denominational evangelicals and reformed churches that are key supporters of special creation.
Most have been blown away in Non-evolutionist circles as grasping or gasping...your choice...to support what they could not find.
Hey! Nice tagline!!!
CA....
That's the point of posting them.
I have been a well-studied Bible believing Christian for over 20 years.
If, as you suppose, the God of the Bible is a socialist...why would he give anyone free will?
Why was Adam and Eve free to fall?
Socialists ORDER you to believe the right thing. They don't give anyone the freedom to think for themselves. Hence the scientists who say..."You say you are a scientist but don't believe in evolution? You cannot possibly be a scientist! and I never debate non-scientists!"
So...despite a person's credentials...their studious work along the lines of the scientific method...
the evolutionist has cordoned them off from being scientists so he or she does NOT have to debate them.
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.