what a curious and prescient view of science,from bram stoker's Dracula:
ah,it is the fault of our science, that it wants to explain all: and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.but yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which we think themselves new: and which are yet the old, which pretend to be young-like the fine ladies in the opera. I suppose now you do not believe in corporeal transferanve.N0?nor in materialization. No?nor astral bodies.No? nor reading of thoughts No? nor in hypnotisms...yes.
ah,it is the fault of our science, that it wants to explain all: and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.but yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which we think themselves new: and which are yet the old, which pretend to be young-like the fine ladies in the opera. I suppose now you do not believe in corporeal transferanve.N0?nor in materialization. No?nor astral bodies.No? nor reading of thoughts No? nor in hypnotisms...yes.
The best critique of Darwinism is “Darwin on Trial “by Philip E.Johnson, intervarsity press 1993.
Johnston is a professor of law specializing in the logic of arguments.
Though he does present paleontological evidence that discredits Darwinist, most of the book deals with the logic or illogic arguments of the Darwinist position.
Darwinist simply does not have empirical evidence from the fossil record to substantiate the theory(not fact) of naturistic, purposeless evolution. According to Darwin there should be many fossils of the intermediate species that elvolve into later specie. But there is not. Darwin asnsered this problem by saying that the fossil record is incomplete and in the future the evidence of these missing intermediate species will appear. But 100 years later and the fossil record has become even more indicative of the lack of these necessary intermediate specie.
There are two examples that could support Darwin.one is the famous archaeopteryx ,65 million years ago,which was a flying dinosaur with teeth and claws that does seem to fit the intermediate speciesbetween dinosaurs and birds. But newer fossils of birds have been dated, (not with out critics) to 200 million years old which would meant that archaeopteryx was a later side branch and not a direct progenitors of modern birds.
The important word here is direct as Darwin’s theory needs a single genome to directly lead back to the progenitor specie of the modern specie.
There are a collection of reptile /mammal fossils in existence but they cannot be distinguished as to which were reptile and which were proto mammal and therefore cannot give a direct line of decent.
Of the most famous fossils or those of modern man and Darwinist like to point out to the clear line of descent through 4-5 hominids. But the most recent evidence has show that these examples of hominid evolution were in many case living at the same time. So there is no line of descent rather a “bush”.
And more recent investigation has shown that many of these hominids have as much ape like characteristic as proto human characteristic. That is it looks like curtain characteristic might become human in the future. But it is all speculation and prejudice.
One of the most blatant example of Darwinist prejudice is that when one sees a diorama or a illustration of pre human hominids, they always have modern human bodies but ape like heads. This is pure propaganda
But the overwhelming picture of the fossil record is that there are no intermediate species present, only distinctly different species that appear with no progenitor.
When Darwinist are faced with evidence against Darwin’s theory, they usually revert to tautological statements. That is needless repletion of the same sense in different words or a statement that includes all logical possibilities and is therefore always true and hence meaningless for empirical investigation.
The basic concept of natural selection is a tautology. It states the fittest ibdivudauls in a popultion will leve the most offspring,but when asked what does fittest mean?,the answer is those who leave the most off spring. So this circular logic leaves no room for investigation as to it truth or falsity and is in the end meaning less empirically.
Anyways a most remarkable book that shook the Darwinist school.