Gaga for Darwin?

Carol Iannone writes:

The Darwinian evolutionists often accuse conservative Darwin skeptics of the grossest kind of ignorance. But what is a thinking person to do? A short while ago I saw a cable program on a recent and remarkable discovery of dinosaur bones. The newly discovered dinosaurs are comparatively small, something like ten or so feet long, as opposed to the sixty to ninety foot monsters we are familiar with. The little dinosaurs come from the Triassic period, which preceded the age of the great dinosaurs, the Jurassic period. The program kept saying, how did the little dinosaurs evolve into the great ones. The implication was that of course they had to have evolved, and the program was going to show how that had happened. The program kept featuring an active timeline, with the little dinosaurs stepping along in lively fashion in their Triassic period, oblivious of the role they were to play in the evolution of the great dinosaurs to come, who were themselves shown lumbering ahead in the Jurassic. By program’s end, the only thing that was offered as explanation was that increased food sources may have resulted in the little dinosaurs evolving into big ones. Also, that the evolutionary advantage to being big is that you do not have predators. A modern example was offered, that of the elephant, who has no predators. And that was about it by way of explanation, unless I missed something. There wasn’t even an attempt to show progressive intermediate forms. A viewer who wasn’t already gaga for Darwin had to come away increasingly skeptical.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 01, 2008 12:21 PM | Send