Posted on 07/04/2004 5:19:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor Ernst Mayr, the scientist renowned as the father of modern biology, will celebrate his 100th birthday tomorrow by leading a scathing attack on creationism.
The evolutionary biologist, who is already acclaimed as one of the most prolific researchers of all time, has no intention of retiring and is shortly to publish new research that dismantles the fashionable creationist doctrine of “intelligent design”.
Although he has reluctantly cut his workload since a serious bout of pneumonia 18 months ago, Prof. Mayr has remained an active scientist at Harvard University throughout his 90s. He has written five books since his 90th birthday and is researching five academic papers. One of these, scheduled to appear later this year, will examine how “intelligent design” — the latest way in which creationists have sought to present a divine origin of the world — was thoroughly refuted by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago.
His work is motivated in part by a sense of exasperation at the re-emergence of creationism in the USA, which he compares unfavourably with the widespread acceptance of evolution that he encountered while growing up in early 20th-century Germany.
The states of Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Oklahoma currently omit the word “evolution” from their curriculums. The Alabama state board of education has voted to include disclaimers in textbooks describing evolution as a theory. In Georgia, the word “evolution” was banned from the science curriculum after the state’s schools superintendent described it as a “controversial buzzword”.
Fierce protest, including criticism from Jimmy Carter, the former President, reversed this.
Prof. Mayr, who will celebrate his 100th birthday at his holiday home in New Hampshire with his two daughters, five grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren, was born on 5 July 1905 in Kempten, Germany. He took a PhD in zoology at the University of Berlin, before travelling to New Guinea in 1928 to study its diverse bird life. On his return in 1930 he emigrated to the USA. His most famous work, Systematics and the Origin of Species, was published in 1942 and is regarded still as a canonical work of biology.
It effectively founded the modern discipline by combining Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s genetics, showing how the two were compatible. Prof. Mayr redefined what scientists mean by a species, using interbreeding as a guide. If two varieties of duck or vole do not interbreed, they cannot be the same species.
Prof. Mayr has won all three of the awards sometimes termed the “triple crown” of biology — the Balzan Prize, the Crafoord Prize and the International Prize for Biology. Although he formally retired in 1975, he has been active as an Emeritus Professor ever since and has recently written extensively on the philosophy of biology.
You could - but wouldn't that be a bit excessive?
My undergraduate degree is in political science. Does that make me a scientist, too?
Of course I've heard of peer review. That's when evolutionists get reviewed by other evolutionists.
:sigh: a scientist of politics, yes. a science is simply a study, and a scientist is simply one who studies. your science does not relate to this chemical/biological science that is being discussed however.
a Theologist is one who studies God or other Ultimate Wills, though typically it is the Judeo-Chritian God that is most accepted, as "Theo" means roughly "One most in charge"... note the "One"
Simple. Some of the diversity of life on this planet is a result of evolution, but not all.
While there may be reasonable debates about whether particular aspects of biodiversity were created or evolved, I see the issue as being far more quantitative than qualitative. Of course, there's still the big question about the origin of Man, but even that wouldn't pose a problem if one regards human beings as being more than their biological components: even if non-human anthropods evolved, it would still take an act of God to impart the human soul.
hmmm, intersting... so if God is truly simply "force" (according to that Biblical review earlier) that would mean that
"God Created us in His Image" would be about "in essence, we're all force (or energy, or whatever) and we all came from teh same source"
which would still fit into the Bible neatly.
"even if non-human anthropods evolved, it would still take an act of God to impart the human soul."
bingo!
Evolution was, is and always will be. I'm a conservative, but I see these Creationist rants as a waste of time. Isn't there a special bible-thumper site for this topic??
No, but it may give you an understanding of theology and what it's about.
Evolution was, is and always will be.
and for several eons, scientists believed that matter could come from nothing (worms appearing when it rains, not coming out of the ground)
they also thought they could extract gold from silver, or iron.
and it was also stated in the late 19th centuray that "all things that can be invented, have been invented"
never say never.
Tsk Tsk .. poor thing .. can't handle the truth of the Bible .. huh ..??
And .. I don't thump the Bible .. I believe it!!
LOL.
Completely beside the point, but I just have to say that HBO is playing a really wonderful family movie this week -- "FairyTale: A True Story" -- a Mel Gibson production. It's about the most famous photographic hoax of the twentieth century (before Registered).
Perhaps it's not off topic after all.
Evolution: A fairy tale for adults who should know better.
Wrong-o. The constant errors in media and popular representations of science are at the very top of most scientists' pet peeves (for conservative scientists, people who make the same errors and erroneous assumptions about science on FR are number two.) And the job of a scientist is to take on tough questions, and try their best to answer them.
"The origin of life has NOTHING TO DO WITH evolution either. You can believe God created life and still be an ardent evolutionist."
Well, you certainly made it clear that you do not couple evolutionary theory with abiogenesis. However, you must know that secularists do. If "creationists" always bring up abiogenesis, it is because this is a logical extension of evolutionary thought. Like I said before, theistic evolutionists are not respected either by secular evolutionists or creationists.
Do you think that God created life and then used evolution as a guided mechanism to complete His creation? Or do you think God was passive, allowing evolution to do it all? Can you personally define your position clearly? Do you think a hard core atheist evolutionist would "respect" your views?
Where do you really stand? Do you want the "comfort" Christianity affords, but still want to bow to secular efforts to eliminate the need for God in thought? Remember, this thread started over an attack on "intelligent design." Do you see intelligence in the design of this world, life, DNA?
Every single one of them in the world? Not a person among them have a different view.
Doubtful,
for most,
but not for those who know every thought God has had or will ever make.
"even if non-human anthropods evolved, it would still take an act of God to impart the human soul."
What is a soul? The secularist evolutionist would say that a soul, or anything spiritual, is just the way evolved humans try to explain what is not explainable. They would say that we inately want to exist in some other form than flesh. So, we invent the concept of soul, God, etc. To them we just can't accept we are just a random part of "star stuff" as Sagan would say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.