I want one of these.
(HT: Creation On The Web)
“[Ernst] Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany…. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science – all contributed to the rise of Nazism.” (Stephen J. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).
“Thus there results the subjection of a number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason.”(Adolf Hitler)
“The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” (Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947).
According to this article, the “theory of evolution itself is evolving”. Which, when you think about it for more than a half second, makes one wonder why Darwinists insist that evolution “isn’t just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence”. After all, a theory that is still evolving is also one that is less than settled. This probably accounts for the willingness of the Darwinian hegemony to be increasingly dependent on court rulings, rather than scientific consensus, to validate and enforce its increasingly untenable claims within the scientific and educational communities. Considering that the major tenants of Darwinian evolution are now being abandoned quicker than a jackrabbit running from the nose of a shotgun, it’s surprising that any credible scientist would make the statement that "we understand evolution pretty well”.
The truth is that aside from court enforced obeisance to evolutionary theory and Darwinian hegemony in the scientific community, evolutionary theory is still little more than speculation and it is certainly not understood. Consider, for example, the abandonment of Darwin’s Tree of Life which roots, branches, and limbs are as still unconnected today as they were in 1859 even after more than a hundred and fifty years of frenetic research. On the other hand, the newer “web or bush” model now favored by evolutionists eliminates the pesky need to link evolution to something resembling proof because, as the article points out, it allows for a blurring of the “sharp lines between species”. In other words, the need to demonstrate descent by small incremental changes occurring continuously over long periods of time is, under the new model, unnecessary. Evolution is so because it is said to be so, not because it is scientific, intelligent, or rational.
“The fossil remains found at Piltdown by Mr. Dawson set students of man’s evolution the most difficult task that has confronted them hitherto. In his characterization, Piltdown Man was quite unlike any fossil type known to us. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward was impressed by his simian similarities; I, on the other hand, was impressed by those features which, as I thought then, were eminently human and modern. Hence arose those discrepancies between us–discrepancies of a quarter of a century ago.
Since then, much has happened. Discoveries are being made which help to throw Piltdown man into his proper place in the crowded throng of evolving human forms. We now know that when the Piltdown type was being evolved in England–or at the western end of the Old World–a totally different type had come into being in the Eastern lands of the Old World. The Eastern types had low receding foreheads, modelled as in the gorilla and chimpanzee. The Western or Piltdown type differed; it had a relatively upright and high forehead modelled not on gorilla lines but rather on those of the organg. While the Eastern forms retained in their shape of head the low squat type of the chimpanzee and gorilla, the Western or Piltdown type tended to assume the higher vaulted skull seen in modern races. There is no denying that in many of his features Piltdown man foreshadowed some of the structural modifications we find in modern races of mankind. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, I know, will agree with me as to how Piltdown man came by such features; he came by them independently, for discoveries of recent years have proved that diverse races of mankind have undergone the same structural change quite independently of each other. And there is also no denying that through all his known parts there runs a simian vein in Piltdown man, in his skull and brain as well as is in his mandible.”
Excerpt (emphasis added) from the 1938 speech by noted evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith on the occasion of the unveiling of a memorial in honor of Charles Dawson on the spot where Piltdown Man was “discovered”.
Piltdown Man, you may recall, was one of the most famous paleontological hoaxes of history. It only took the combined brain power of leading evolutionists 40 years to conclude that the Piltdown “fossil” was actually a composite of a human skull, the jaw of an orangutan, and the filed down teeth of a chimpanzee. As events turned out, Sir Keith was partially right though, its just that it took until 1958 for Piltdown Man to take its proper place along side all the other imaginary proofs of human evolution.
While some evolutionists seem content to abandoned science to explain evolution, others seem more willing to explore Intelligent Design even if they can’t admit to it.
A recent multidisciplinary study on the two-phase increase in the size of life has concluded that there must exist a “preexisting evolutionary potential” to explain the sudden increase in size and complexity which occurred twice in the history of life, both times following increases in atmospheric oxygen.
What exactly this “evolutionary potential” was is not speculated upon. The presence of latent genetic programs is certainly the most obvious explanation. Darwinists of course are unable to offer this obvious possibility. They would then have to explain where those programs might have come from. They would then be branded ID Creationists and lose their jobs.
When Darwinism’s fallacy filled facade finally falls there’s no telling what new belief atheists will gravitate to in order to rationalize their continued denial of God but I suspect Dawkins’ space-alien-creator notion is looking better to them all the time.
Speaking of trolls, I have a policy of deleting troll comments (and banning the worst troll offenders) although from time to time I allow a few to remain for various reasons. The October 2008 comments of troll bobxxxx has the dubious distinction of surviving this editorial policy and earning the Benison Troll Survivor award for 2008.
…Ladies and Gentlemen, Troll Bob:
The average American atheist is a capitalist, not an insane communist dictator.
Also, even if every single atheist in the world was an ax murderer who eats babies for fun, that would not be evidence for the childish idiotic idea that there’s a magic fairy hiding in the clouds, also known as Mr. God.
Thank you for visiting.
You wrote: “The average American atheist is a capitalist, not an insane communist dictator.”
I’d take that as axiomatic. Even in Soviet Russia the average atheist was not a communist dictator. They only had one at a time.
Please remember you referred to atheists as insane, not me.
You also wrote: “Also, even if every single atheist in the world was an ax murderer who eats babies for fun, that would not be evidence for the childish idiotic idea that there’s a magic fairy hiding in the clouds, also known as Mr. God.”
I’d also take that as axiomatic. Out of curiosity, how many ax murdering baby eating atheists are there anyway?