By Patrick J. Buchanan
Among the most influential men of the 20th century were a pair of 19th-century scholars: Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.
Recent years have not been kind to either. Marxism-Leninism, the ideology that welded together and drove the Soviet empire, has been discredited by the horrors it produced and the colossal failure of Marxist theory when put into practice.
Comes now Darwin's turn. In his 1859 "The Origin of Species" and other works, Darwin posited his thesis that man is not the work of any Creator, but a being that evolved from lower forms of life out of the primordial ooze.
In his "Politically Correct Guide to Science," Tom Bethell, who Tom Wolfe calls "one of our most brilliant essayists," has, in 36 pages, gathered and briefly described a few of the difficulties that Darwinists are facing in defending their dogmas against skeptics.
For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found. As Bethell writes, bats are the only mammals to have mastered powered flight. But even the earliest bats found in the fossil record have complex wings and built-in sonar. Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings?
Their absence does not prove � but does suggest � that they do not exist. Is it not time, after 150 years, that the Darwinists started to deliver and ceased to be taken on faith?
In the Galapagos Islands, which Darwin visited in HMS Beagle in 1835, his later disciples discovered, after a drought, that the beaks of finches expanded 5 percent to help them crack the dried and hardened seeds � i.e., Darwinian adaptation. But when the rains returned, researchers found the beaks returned to normal size.
No one denies "micro-evolution" � i.e., species adapting to their environment. It is macro-evolution that is in trouble.
The Darwinian thesis of "survival of the fittest" turns out to be nothing but a tautology. How do we know existing species were the fittest? Because they survived. Why did they survive? Because they were the fittest.
While clever, this tells us zip about why we have tigers. It is less a scientific theory than a notion masquerading as a fact.
For those seeking the source of Darwin's "discovery," there is an interesting coincidence. Darwin and his collaborator Alfred Russel Wallace both read Thomas Malthus' famous "An Essay on the Principle of Population." Malthus theorized that since the production of food grew by small annual increments, while population was almost doubling with each generation, the struggle for food would lead to conflicts and wars in which only the strongest would survive.
With too much knowledge sometime you lose your soul. Cretion is an act of faith, just like the earth being flat. Copernic scientifically proved that the earth was round which the church knew all along. Evolution has no scientific basis as far as I am concerned (AFAIAC). And if as Phy pretends that the apes and humans came from the same "precursor", how come the fittest only didn't survive. And where did that same "precursor" comes from?
Darwin and Freud were con scientists fer sherr.
Check SAX! Kiki
Lad-You are right I like that Corsica,TX type friends send us but I do think the "fruity" part still applies to Phy.Wonder if Ponte sent Phy a Happy Holidays card as we know he does not like Christmas.BTW- Check MRK for value of analysts today Matrix downgrades MRK to SELL and on monday Deutsche raised to BUY. Retired FDA scientist told me MRK could do well on vaccines.The >5% yield is tempting but I'm waiting for another Vioxx verdict.