Panderichthys -vs- Tiktaalik

Darwinians start out arguing with Creationists and ID believers, but end up contradicting themselves . Actually, I'm being too harsh; they are making scientific progress. They find something like Tiktaalik and put it forward as a missing link. Then, later, they find Panderichthys, and start trumpeting that find, while denegrating the previously touted Tiktaalik.

I am not a biologist, so all I can do is use my reason to evaluate what's out there. All science is not clear cut: Scientists make inferences based upon existing data, much of which is not clear to start with. Educated people make judgments to get from point A to point B. You cannot discount human nature's role in connecting the dots: To a Darwinian, those radial bones look like tetrapod digits. Skeptics like Dr. Roy Spencer do not denigrate Darwinism, but simply want more data.

Meanwhile, politicized cohorts beat their chests and hurl insults at the enemy.

Big Bang/Darwinism/Atheism/Democratic Underground

- vs -
Creationism/ID/Belief in God/Free Republic

Despite all the sturm und drang, the science is not "settled" (apologies to Al Gore). There are smart scientists of goodwill on both sides.

A final question for the belligerent Darwinists: If it's all so clear, why must you strain so hard to prove the obvious? It's still a long way from fish gills to human ears.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/the_rise_and_fall_of_tiktaalik.html
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/09/23/iconic_status_of_tiktaalik_a_hard_pill_t
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

The Religion of Darwinism

Canadian David Warren has written a brilliant piece cutting Darwin down to size.

The Darwinian account is merely belied by the fossil record, which has provided none of the inter-species "missing links" that Darwin anticipated, and which instead yields only sudden radical changes.

But "Darwinism" survives, especially in the English-speaking world, not as a quaint historical theory, but rather as a cosmological doctrine. The hard-core Darwinist is a "religious atheist," whose faith in the non-existence of God is anchored in the unshakeable conviction that everything in this world that looks designed and purposeful will eventually be explained by random, gradual, purely "natural" (as opposed to supernatural) processes. And he defends himself by the method of the hedgehog: for when attacked he rolls up into an impregnably tautological ball.

I won't spoil his brilliant and surprising conclusion. Go read the whole enjoyable essay at Mr. Warren's website.