On the 2012 presidential campaign tour in New Hampshire, the current Republican front-runner, Texas Governor Rick Perry, set off a media firestorm responding to a question from a boy as prompted by his mother about the age of the Earth and evolution.
“I hear your mom was asking about evolution,” Perry said. “That’s a theory that is out there — and it’s got some gaps in it.”
Writing in The Guardian, an original supported of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution starting in the nineteenth century, liberal commentator Paul Krugman in his column, The Observer, ran crazy with the comment in the article entitled “The Republicans are now the anti-science party, on climate change and evolution, the party’s presidential hopefuls are wilfully ignorant.”
“Mr Perry, the governor of Texas,” according to Krugman, “recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as just a theory’, one that has “got some gaps in it”, an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.” Really?
Apparently, Krugman is “wilfully ignorant” about the “majority of biologists”. The book, Evolution-the Extended Synthesis published by MIT Press explains in detail why the “gaps” in evolution theory still persist.
The Evolution-the Extended Synthesis was written by sixteen leading scientists from around the world that met in Altenberg, Austria during the summer of 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a new unifying and comprehensive theory of evolution to eliminate the “gaps” as mentioned by Perry. This meeting has been since been popularly called the Altenberg-16 Summit.
What emerged from the summit meeting, ironically, were sixteen different theories rather than a one unifying and comprehensive theory. Today, amazingly there are more “gaps” in the theory of evolution than at any time since the publication of The Origin of Species by Darwin in 1859.
Kruger, apparently, is not aware of the controversies with the evolution of theories over the past 150 years, including Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. No theory, to date, has arisen as an adequate unifying candidate to account for presumed evolution. Today, the field of evolution not only has gaps”, evolution is simply a philosophy without a scientific theory.
Ann Coulter was quick to jump into the debate with the blog posted on Human Events. However, unlike Kruger, Coulter in the post entitled “Liberals’ View of Darwin Unable to Evolve” on August 31st with substance rather than typical extinct rhetoric produced by the government financed evolution industry.
From the genetic evidence, Coulter points out that scientist now recognize that “the vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism.” Krugman, apparently, is “wilfully ignorant” that mutations, the foundation of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory, have been abandoned as a theoretical mechanism for evolution.
Damaged genetic data cannot pave a road to progressively greater complexity as once anticipated by genetic evolutionists during the twentieth century.
As Coulter notes, not only do evolutionists have a problem with the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory, they have problem with the fossil record: “We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record — for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale,” “But that’s not what the fossil record shows. We don’t have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the ‘trade secret’ of paleontology.” Krugman, apparently, is “wilfully ignorant” that the fossil record is a problem, not a solution, for the evolution industry.
How did evolutionists end up with a problem rather than a viable theory? Coulter explains: “Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.” Krugman, apparently, is “wilfully ignorant” that starting with Darwin,
the evolution industry has long since abandoned the scientific method. After the sparring, the obvious fact emerges, Krugman, not the Republicans, represent news media “anti-science” journalism.
Never has a theory played such leverage in a national presidential election campaign. Perhaps, Coulter is wrong - the Krugman camp is evolving into extinction.
Go campaign 2012.