“Darwin said that speciation occurred too slowly for us to see it. Gould and Eldredge said it occurred too quickly for us to see it. Either way we don’t see it.”
From a review on Darwin’s Doubt, in the American Spectator.
Huxley worked like a political revolutionary, not an impartial scientist. He had an agenda. He wanted empire: unsatisfied with natural phenomena that were testable, observable and repeatable, he worked fervently on a hostile takeover of the origins and destiny business.
Think beyond the collapse of the Darwinian regime, which appears inevitable. Will it be replaced by something better? Probably not, as long as humans refuse to acknowledge the authority of their Creator. That’s been the basic human sin since Eden. If the scientific just-so storytellers ever get shamed out of science, what we don’t need, any more than another brand of cigarettes, is another group of storytellers from the religious side. Liberal theologians and spiritual leaders have lots of opinions, but who cares what they believe or think is true, if they cannot prove it? This leads directly to the question, what is the source of ultimate authority? We learned it is not Aristotle, but neither is it any other mortal, including a scientist. If science returns to its empirical roots and gets out of the spheres of origins, destiny and ultimate meaning, that question may well prove to be the intellectual battle of the 21st century. Unfortunately, Bible believers may find it more difficult to debate liberal theologians than materialistic scientists on this point. At least materialistic scientists claimed to respect objective truth and logic. But liberal theologians tend to become hypnotized on spirituality or their own imaginations rather submitting to the authority of the Word of God. Getting them to prove their opinions, rather than tell religious just-so stories, will be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Creationists might get nostalgic for the good old days. – See more here.