Remember Ida? Formally dubbed Darwinius masillae, the cat-sized fossil was touted as the “missing link” between modern humans and their ancient primate ancestors.
News reports blared that the find would finally settle the debate between Darwinism and Religion, which was odd because I kept hearing that there was no debate; Evolution is accepted Law. So why we needed actual physical evidence was unclear to me.
The Press, in their efforts to outdo each other in the Best Supporting Journalist – Evolution category, described the fossil as “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.” I even read one article claiming we would finally be able to do away with Religion once and for all.
When Liberals start talking like this, I know all I have to do is wait. Disappointment has a way of souring hastily-made celebrations, and I knew it would eventually catch up with the Darwinist cheerleaders, too.
Well, the waiting is over. To borrow a line from a popular song from the 70′s, “another one bites the dust.”
Scientific American Magazine has published an article that summarizes recent criticisms of the earlier claims of Ida’s place in the line of human evolution. The critics’ arguments are quite convincing, as well. For one, Ida is too old to be the missing link. She is 47 million years old, while the earliest possible human ancestors are only 7 million years old. Ida also has features that do not appear in the line which allegedly became modern humans.
Robert Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago charges that some of the traits used to align Ida with the anthropoids do not in fact support such a relationship. Fusion of the lower jaw, for instance, is not present in the earliest unequivocal anthropoids, suggesting that it was not an ancestral feature of this group. Moreover, the trait has arisen independently in several lineages of mammals—including some lemurs—through convergent evolution. Martin further notes that Ida also lacks a defining feature of the anthropoids: a bony wall at the back of the eye socket. “I am utterly convinced that Darwinius has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of higher primates,” he declares.
We are still waiting for Darwinism to produce the “missing link.” In the meantime, I would recommend not holding one’s breath.
H/T to Post-Darwinist.
In his inauguration speech, Pres. Obama made a lot of promises. Those who were paying attention recognized quickly what those promises might mean for America. Among the many things he said we will do in the coming years, he included a promise to “restore science to its rightful place.” It begs the question, what does he believe is the rightful place of science in America, and why does he believe it needs to be restored?
When Pres. Obama says we need to restore science to it’s rightful place, there is the assumption that the previous 8 years have been a sort of dark ages, wherein science was looked upon as an evil heresy. Obama’s words were a slap in the face of those who continue to profess a belief that science cannot answer all questions.
Those involved with the debate raging between proponents of Intelligent Design and Evolution (specifically neo-Darwininsm) should have recognized the import of that promise, because it affects them directly. If Pres. Obama succeeds in restoring science, according to his understanding, it means bad things for America generally, and religion in particular.
The problem is the current definition of science. It is no longer the objective pursuit of knowledge through observation of the natural world. It is now much more narrow. The prevailing definition of science now is the art of explaining the world in terms of methodological naturalism. If you are not familiar with that term, it means that there is no existence outside of the natural realm–there is no supernatural, spiritual, or unseen world. The universe and all life within it are the products of blind, unthinking chance. Nothing more.
Science is now being hijacked to fulfill an agenda. In order to be considered a competent scientist in many circles today, you must have a previous commitment to naturalism. Which, of course, means that you are not going to let evidence take you where it will. Evidence is only valid if it supports the prerequisite of naturalism. Methodological naturalism states that there is no knowledge or truth outside the discipline of science. If something cannot be seen, measured, counted, handled, etc., it doesn’t exist.
This poses some very specific problems for religions, as they are now relegated to the fringes of society as believers in fairy tales and myths. But it also presents a very serious threat to our particular system of government, and specifically the doctrine of the origin of rights in America.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The key term here is “self-evident.” Under the new defintion of Science, there is no such thing as self-evident and the Founding Fathers could not have known any such “truths,” because cannot be known through scientific means. There is no such thing as a Creator, or unalienable Rights. The Creator is imaginary and, therefore, any Rights that may once have been believed to be a gift from any such Creator are now seen as dispensed by men to other men, which means that they can be rescinded at need or even at will.
Based upon the new definition of Science, it is clear what Barak Obama’s plans entail. He intends to bring all rights under the administration of government, which will be the final arbiter of rights. That means government decides which rights you have, and which you do not. Is this really the change America voted for?