After more than a hundred years of intense fossil hunting where finding a 'missing link' is a holy grail that guarantees fame, has the 'fact' of evolution been verified?
My humble suggestion... It's far, far from being a settled issue though its 'truth' is being trumpeted as well-established as we're made to believe. Belief in the 'fact' of evolution is ‘faith’ based on the authority of scientists who have gone well beyond science to the realm of philosophy.
Let's take Paleontology as the finest example of Darwinist 'proof'. (Notice: I'm not targetting Archilles heels but the strongest points in the armor)
Ironically, this discipline is becoming more like an embarassment to the Darwinist establishment. When Darwin wrote the Origins of Species, he conceded that the lack of transitory fossils as the most obvious and gravest objection against his theory but he predicted that future research would find NUMEROUS examples of such missing links. After 150 years of collecting fossil records, his prediction did not come true.
Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that two features characterize the fossil records - most species appear "fully formed" in the same way they disappear and there is limited, directionless change. OK, I may even grant that you find one or two conceivable transition link here and there, for arguments' sake... but isn't it weird that Darwin's prediction didn't come true despite all the huge efforts that have gone in and yet evolution is still lauded as 'fact'? Jay Gould had to advance the theory of 'an evolutionary jump' which X-Men movies seized on recently... that's fine but it's at least tacit admission that paleontology does not fit well with the more orthodox, gradual Darwinism. And to have explanatory power, the evolutionary process has to be gradual, small-step increments as Dawkins asserts. Otherwise, the more sudden leaps you make, the wider our credibility gap become.
My humble suggestion... It's far, far from being a settled issue though its 'truth' is being trumpeted as well-established as we're made to believe. Belief in the 'fact' of evolution is ‘faith’ based on the authority of scientists who have gone well beyond science to the realm of philosophy.
Let's take Paleontology as the finest example of Darwinist 'proof'. (Notice: I'm not targetting Archilles heels but the strongest points in the armor)
Ironically, this discipline is becoming more like an embarassment to the Darwinist establishment. When Darwin wrote the Origins of Species, he conceded that the lack of transitory fossils as the most obvious and gravest objection against his theory but he predicted that future research would find NUMEROUS examples of such missing links. After 150 years of collecting fossil records, his prediction did not come true.
Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that two features characterize the fossil records - most species appear "fully formed" in the same way they disappear and there is limited, directionless change. OK, I may even grant that you find one or two conceivable transition link here and there, for arguments' sake... but isn't it weird that Darwin's prediction didn't come true despite all the huge efforts that have gone in and yet evolution is still lauded as 'fact'? Jay Gould had to advance the theory of 'an evolutionary jump' which X-Men movies seized on recently... that's fine but it's at least tacit admission that paleontology does not fit well with the more orthodox, gradual Darwinism. And to have explanatory power, the evolutionary process has to be gradual, small-step increments as Dawkins asserts. Otherwise, the more sudden leaps you make, the wider our credibility gap become.
Comments