Feet of clay

Yesterday morning we looked out the window and saw what we first took to be the morning star or the dog star or some such timeless thing. But then we noticed it was moving towards us, and we started to go ballistic, imagining Armageddon was on our doorstep. It turned out to be a major airline plane flying south to north (above), a rare thing in these parts, with Logan Airport just to the east of us, but Tuck reported he'd seen such things from time to time.

"Sissy, actually, I don't think there are any scientists who support Darwin's theory," emails the normally astute John Hinderaker of PowerLine in an eye-popping response to a note we sent the PL boys yesterday following their plug of Mark Steyn's thumbs-up review of Ann Coulter's new book. Here's what we said:

Re the otherwise awesome Ann Coulter, what do you make of her trashing of Darwin's theory of evolution? In my view, it totally undermines her credibility.

Hindrocket's response left our jaw dragging along the floor. We'll probably never recover (just kidding):

They have moved on to other variants of "evolution," but all are, in my opinion, based on faith, not evidence.

We've blogged about the field work and subsequent theoretical thinking of our hero, Charles Darwin, early and often here, of course. "There is a grandeur in this view of life" is one of our own all-time faves. Just as a cat can look at a king -- or in our version, a king can look at a cat -- anyone who's good at one thing can make pronouncements in a field he knows nothing of. But he does so at his own risk, as his credibility is in the balance. It's profoundly disappointing when a person one admires as we do John Hinderaker dismisses Darwin's ideas without anything more than this:

It is striking how much fraud has been committed in support of the concept of evolution, but the fact is, modern science does not support it. This is a big topic which we can't begin to cover here.

"Just because Osama is paranoid doesn't mean the infidel isn't out to get him," we captioned this Photoshopped image of the tormented one back in April of 2004, when we "donned our tin foil hat and came up with a couple of good ones."

Well, yes, in your "opinion." As Allahpundit at HotAir [via Laura Lee Donoho at The Wide Awake Cafe] said re our fellow bloggers who went hysterical over the aborted coming of the 12th Imam earlier this week:

I’ll still read them, but never again with quite the same credulity. That’s how it works, boys.

Credulity can be a problem at anytime, of course. We ourselves have not been above apocalyptic prognostications, and last time we promulgated one, back in April of '04, it got us kudos from the estimable Thomas Lifton of The American Thinker.

Update: Pajamas Media takes note.

Comments

[bird dog]

Sissy:

Darwin is a science hero, like Newton. But, like Newton's, his theory will be replaced, and has already been heavily revised, if not reconstructed, in recent years. Even gravity, after all, is now defunct. All scientific theories are replaced in time. Science humbly produces theories, not truths. "Truth" is for religion.
But I have no idea from whence Hinderaker is coming.

[enrevanche]

I don't know a single intellectually serious person who disparages evolution. Not one. (Incidentally, I received my primary education at a *very* conservative Christian school in the 1970s, where the science teachers wouldn't have dreamed of teaching anything but, you know, *science*.)

As for our collection of Chicken Littles, these are strange and unsettling times we live in, and they can certainly be forgiven for their moment... okay, for their extended period, of panic. The thing about predicting disaster in the Middle East is that you'll almost never be wrong, eventually; it's just a bitch getting the timing right.

But like Allahpundit, I will be heeding a variant of Descartes' dictum:

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived."

Substitute "those who are so easily..." for "that by which we have even once been..." and there you have it.

[Sissy Willis]

Barry, darling.

[Jeff Hull]

For me, it's not so much the fact that otherwise thoughtful and educated people deny the overwhelming evidence for the evolutionary explanation of life's diversity that is so jarring. It is the hubris involved in presuming to tell the Creator just how He operates.

Job 38: 4: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5: Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! ..."

Truly, these people remind me of Solomon's dictum in Ecclesiastes: "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

OBTW, last week's poem toyed playfully with just such "questions."

[Teresa]

That the evolution of the earth and of human beings was and is continuing, there is no doubt in my mind.

That Darwin's original theories as to the whys and wherefores is correct - I sincerely doubt. There have been many things learned since then in science. There have been many bad science theories debunked. Just as there have been many bogus theories to take the place of those we have jettisoned.

We can see major signs of evolution even over the last few hundred years. The question is not "do we evolve" but "how do we evolve" and "how did it all start". It may be that we never find an answer with real proof. But as humans we will constantly be looking. So the "theory" will be constantly changing as outlooks change.

If we haven't completely destroyed ourselves and society in the next 500 years, I would be willing to bet that we currently have no clue what the theories of that time will be.

[goomp]

Things evolve period. As to how and why the proof is not conclusive. Need more be said?

[Jeff]

When I have questions concerning biology and evolution, then I go to the expert.

That's how one should handle their curiosity of any subject.

[John]

Darwin was a hack. He 'stole' the idea from Wallace. :-) Ok, enough humor.

Sisu,

What seems to get lost in the whole argument over evolution is a serious discussion of the limitations of the theory and/or its shortcomings.

What's the point of the two sides talking over each other. One says it's provably solid the other says it's not.

Some see the theory of evolution as a tautology. If a species survives then it must be the fittest. Does/Can the theory predict which mutations will survive and which won't or is it like a nostradamus prediction? i.e. we only (believe we) understand the quatranes after the fact, or in the case of evolution we see the results of how a species has evolved and say, 'see, that's evolution.'

The theory doesn't explain how life started which is what the ID detractors always bring up. I see this as an apples v. oranges comparison. It's my understanding the Theory never addressed how life begins, only how it adjusts to environmental factors/stresses put upon a species.

J

[Tom Crews]

Let's see . . . Assrocket, a known hack who will jump through rhetorical hoops of fire to avoid acknowledging any fact which clashes with his view of The Way Things Ought To Be, is stupid enough to deny the truth of evolution--and you're surprised by this?

Sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but that makes you exactly as stupid as he is.

[Sissy Willis]

Tom Tom: Your logic -- not to mention your eloquence -- is mind boggling. :)