I call this blog The Progressive Zone because I like to think of myself as a progressive person. Unfortunately, when some people hear the word “progressive,” they equate it to being liberal. My conception of progressive is neither liberal nor conservative—or maybe it’s a little of both.
When Juan Enriquez shares mindboggling science, he explores a number of examples of what I consider to be “progressive.” Watch Enriquez’s TED presentation then read the rest of this post.
As you saw, none of the science Enriquez shares is “liberal” in the negative sense some hold of socialist government or late-term abortions and the like. In fact, the economic concept presented at the beginning is actually fiscally conservative. But no one would deny that both the fiscal approach and the science is progressive—at least according to my concept of progressivism.
Enriquez paints a picture of the kind of future we will get if progressive thought is used to get us there. The question it raises is, do you find this kind of world scary? There are likely many people who would be intimidated by the thought of humankind becoming Homo evolutis. After living more than twenty-five years in a paralyzed body, I find it exciting!
People who do not believe in evolution had some seemingly sound arguments against the theory. Unfortunately, those people now have two fewer legs to stand on. Two arguments commonly used against evolution have now been refuted.
One of the widely known arguments is the watchmaker analogy. It says that the complex inner workings of a watch could only come to be through the act of an intelligent designer. Therefore, as with a watch, the complexity of a given life form could only be created by intelligent design.
It turns out that evolution is a blind watchmaker after all. A doctor of molecular neuroscience wrote a computer program that emulates the process of natural selection using the component parts of a watch. He found that a functioning watch could, in fact, evolve from its independent parts without any intelligent design.
Another argument commonly posited is that no fossil evidence has been discovered that shows one species evolving into another. People who ascribe to this argument postulate that, considering the countless species that have existed on this planet, there must be abundant fossil evidence of this speciation if evolution really occurred. Since there is no such evidence, there has been no evolution.
It was long assumed that man had to look into fossil history for evidence of speciation since written history is too short to observe a species splitting into two separate species. It turns out that mankind need not look back tens of thousands of years for evidence of speciation—they need only to look to the Galapagos islands. The birth of a new species has now been witnessed by scientists. A husband-and-wife team of biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species of Galapagos finches split into two separate species within what turned out to be a surprisingly short period of time.
Proponents of Intelligent Design now need to postulate two new arguments against evolution.