This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

NOTICE:
This Dark Age is now available in paperback on Amazon. The print version is MUCH cleaner than this online version, which is largely unedited and has fallen by the wayside as the project has grown. If you’ve appreciated my writing, please consider leaving a review on the relevant paperback volumes. The print edition also includes new sections (Military History, War Psychology, Dogmatic Theology).

Volume 1 | Volume 2 | Volume 3| Volume 4 | Volume 5 | Volume 6

On the absence of intermediate forms

When pressed on the absence of intermediate forms, a common response is that transitional forms were exceedingly rare and short-lived since their variations were imperfect and their survival precarious. Yet this is odd because it contradicts the basis of the argument, which is that the variations that resulted in the transition were advantageous for survival.

Secondly, we should insist that if ‘trial forms’ are to be the explanation for the transition from one species to another, then the trial forms ought to be plentiful, in fact we should be stumbling onto them at every turn, since these transitions, occurring as they must without intelligent guidance, would have to present themselves in great numbers and in all sorts of variations before they actual succeeded in manifesting the stable species we now know.

Another point here is that if there are such things as intermediate specimens, then all specimens should be seen as potential intermediates: if all life is a chain from simple to complex, then the species we see should not be neatly divided as between so many disconnected links, but would themselves be the links connecting what is with what will be. If transformation really occurred, why did it conveniently stop short of the vision of those who created the theory and all those they’d like to prove it to?

Scientists are, in many cases, aware of these problems. It was said not too long ago by one notable biologist:

The world postulated by transformism is a fairy-like world, phantasmagoric, surrealistic. The chief point, to which one always returns, is that we have never been present, even in a small way, at one authentic phenomenon of evolution…We keep the impression that nature today has nothing to offer that might be capable of reducing our embarrassment before the veritably organic metamorphoses implied in the transformist thesis. We keep the impression that, in the matter of the genesis of the species as in that of the genesis of life, the forces that constructed nature are now absent from nature.[1]

This biologist, after such an admission, can also say the following:

I firmly believe–because I see no means of doing otherwise–that mammals come from lizards, and lizards from fish; but when I declare and when I think such a thing, I try not to avoid seeing its indigestible enormity, and I prefer to leave vague the origin of these scandalous metamorphoses rather than add to their improbability that of a ludicrous interpretation.[2]

Would that all could be as honest and at least stop insisting on the ‘ludicrous interpretation.’

[1] Jean Rostand, Le Figaro Littéraire, April 20, 1957.

[2] Ibid.

Share This