Thursday, September 01, 2011

Fun With the Darwiniacs

Coulter has a few factual observations, which is more than we can say for Darwin.

...Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

....We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology.

Those missing 'transitional critters' are the "gaps" in Darwinian science.  IOW, the theory is nice; but it can't be proven.

And Coulter goes to the heart of it:

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism -- including, for example, the entire fossil record -- they explain away with non-scientific excuses like "the dog ate our fossils."

While Coulter nails the theology (there is no God), she didn't mention the philosophy which resulted from Darwin's fevered imagination:  Progressivism.

And yes, there IS evidence that homo sapiens 'evolved' from Cro-Magnon to the current form.  That's what JPII referenced when he said that 'evolution' was viable as a theory.

But the Progressive/Darwiniacs are incapable of explaining the soul.  They are incapable of reconciling "Progress" with sin.  THAT is the problem that they'd like us to forget about.
at

6 comments:

  1. J. Strupp9/01/2011 12:03 PM

    The problem here is that Coulter isn't accepting the theory of evolution as scientific fact and then taking issue with the idea that science hasn't been able to explain the soul.

    Instead, Coulter tries to shoot down the entire theory of evolution. Why? Because the theory is based on scientific evidence and evidence is "intellectual" which must mean it's progressive in nature.

    This whole anti-intellectual movement is strange. Dumb is "in" these days and my guess is that the GOP candidates that sign on to this movement will try to out"dumb" each other as the election moves closer and closer.

    And people will eat it up no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dad299/01/2011 12:17 PM

    Because the theory is based on scientific evidence

    You mean that SOME of the theory is backed....

    Otherwise, you'd have pictures of the transitional critter lying between trout and squirrel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. jimspice9/01/2011 2:18 PM

    Coulter is SOOOOOOO far off in her summation of evolutionary theory it would be laughable if not for the fact that people take her word as law.

    The one that always gets me is "We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures..." EVERY FOSSIL WE HAVE IS AN "INTERMEDIATE" CREATURE!!! Each came after something and before something else. Only if a representative skeleton from every generation of every species were preserved would we have a complete record. And if that were the case, we'd be trudging through piles of old bones every day.

    By the way, the squirrels-and-bats argument is funny whether or not people take her word for it. It's so far out there you'd almost have to think she's a liberal acting like a conservative trying to make conservatives sound dumb. Just. Plain. Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim9/01/2011 9:04 PM

    List of transitional fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  5. jimspice9/01/2011 11:05 PM

    OK, so science says there is a common ancestor between, oh I don't know, raccoons and koalas, rabbits and kangaroos, rats and possums. You could just as easily say humans and anything with a pouch. It doesn't matter. Science saidt, both via obvious gaps in bone records, and backwards tracking of DNA, that ancestor should have lived about 160 million years ago. But the closest thing we had on record in bone was only 125 million years old. Well what do you know. Just this past week, we hear stories of bones that showed up that looked EXACTLY like expected, and dated to the EXACT expected time. Imagine that.

    There's your transitional fossil.

    (The journal article is not available free online, but this is a good summation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14651218)

    ReplyDelete
  6. jimspice9/01/2011 11:09 PM

    Sorry Jim, Juramaia sinensis doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry yet. Someone should get on that.

    ReplyDelete