Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists
London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,201-1,207 next last
To: Junior
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, that information is stored by a specific arrangement of molecules?

What are you referring to? DNA? RNA? Starch on paper? Silver in an emulsion?

801 posted on 07/08/2004 11:45:37 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Although it lives within a complex host, it feeds on matter of a very simple nature.

Yes, but you are defining a very narrow definition of "living". You might keep an intestinal parasite alive for a while without a live host, but it would not reproduce. The species would die out in one generation. There are other constraints on reproduction. Passenger pigeons died out when their numbers declined. For some reason that species required a critical minimum number of individuals in order to survive. Something to think about when you are tempted to wonder how evolution can select for group benefit rather than individual benefit.

Parasitism exists. Parasites cannot survive and reproduce without hosts. My original question is, how is this conceptually different from the need of a virus or prion for a host in order to reproduce? It is true that prions and viruses do not metabolize, but they take over the metabolism of their host and bend it to their own reproduction. And they evolve.

I think any definition of life should address this behavior.

802 posted on 07/08/2004 12:03:50 PM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
His work and name poppped up yet again while working on my Masters.

If you continue your education you will not be able to change a tire.

803 posted on 07/08/2004 12:06:44 PM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If you continue your education you will not be able to change a tire.

That does seem to be the argument that's been offered!

804 posted on 07/08/2004 12:13:01 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Your entire post:

No. I also posted his statement which is quite important.

It is gibberish in that what is meant by "molecules" or which molecules he means were no understandable neither was what he means by "arrangement".

Here's the statement:

...in discussions about DNA, he's talking about the arrangement of the molecules, which determines their function

What are the molecules being arranged? What is the function determined by that arrangement.

Answer these incredibly straightforward, basic, non-trick questions and you will see why it wasn't right.

805 posted on 07/08/2004 12:13:54 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Indeed, "restatement" is a mischaracterization. That would imply that the following are compatible:

  1. What you said is completely incomprehensible.
  2. I know what you mean to say, but disagree.
  3. I don't know what you mean by most of the words you use so there are ambiguities.
Pick one, and I'll tell you what I think of your criticism.
806 posted on 07/08/2004 12:15:35 PM PDT by VadeRetro ("Well, you can just stay out of MY dreams, then!" -- Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Pick one, and I'll tell you what I think of your criticism.

I pick:

"What you said is completely incomprehensible."

I said it was gibberish, which is not always completely incomprehensible, but lets set that aside for the moment.

807 posted on 07/08/2004 12:27:49 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Hmmm? That and not "I know what you mean to say, but disagree?" Why did you lie when you said this?

I do know what you are trying, and fail utterly, to say. Yet you are more mistaken than correct in your point.

You seem to be using the word gibberish without understanding its meaning. If you can understand it, it ain't gibberish.

808 posted on 07/08/2004 12:33:43 PM PDT by VadeRetro ("Well, you can just stay out of MY dreams, then!" -- Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Your wrote "Finally, the "argument from ignorance" doesn't mean someone's making an ignorant argument -- it means that they are invoking the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Schützenberger employs this again and again, generally in the form, "I can't conceive that evolution could produce such complexity, thus it clearly couldn't have"."

I find this rather amusing. Creationists could say the same thing about atheistic evolutionists stand against creationist paradigms. However, be that as it may, I have studied formal logic and I don't agree with you when you say he has committed a logical fallacy. In my opinion, this doesn't apply to what he said. His points are valid.

I wrote - "Probability and mathematics are much easier to test via the scientific method than evolution."

You wrote - "Whenever a biological issue is understood well enough to allow a valid mathematical or probabilistic analysis, evolution has passed it with flying colors."

The allgorithms these folks have used to demonstrate evolution are flawed - they let too many assumptions of evolutionary theory stand. If you weight your equations to favor something - assuming it true - you have biased the result. However, I readily admit that I would have to differ to someone more knowledgable about computer allogoritms like AG to answer this.




809 posted on 07/08/2004 12:37:29 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
he Nazis survived longer than the Jews, and under evolutionary theory they must be superior to the Jews.

Excuse me? The Nazis are dead and gone (except for a few nutcases chasing blues singers in Illinois). The Jews have their own country and are flourishing throughout the world, including in areas where they are not quite welcome (Europe, the Middle East).

Some Jews died, but the group survived.

810 posted on 07/08/2004 12:44:27 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

Very Christian of you to look forward to the pain and suffering of those who disagree with you.


811 posted on 07/08/2004 12:45:12 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Ah, questions...


812 posted on 07/08/2004 12:46:04 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
At any rate, you picked one so as advertized I'll tell you what I think of your criticism. I think you picked the wrong one. You should probably have picked "I don't know what you mean by most of the words you use so there are ambiguities." I'm not quite sure what Patrick meant myself (and thus can't tell whether I agree or disagree). Your mean-spirited foaming at the mouth in response more than duplicates any mild and unintentional ambiguity on his part.
813 posted on 07/08/2004 12:52:56 PM PDT by VadeRetro ("Well, you can just stay out of MY dreams, then!" -- Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Very Christian of you to look forward to the pain and suffering of those who disagree with you.

That seems to be a theme on these threads, but I receive solace from knowing that, even among true believers, there is probably a sliver of doubt in the back of their minds, an occasional lapse into heresy, or an unnoticed false opinion that will, on the day of judgment, cause them to be cast into outer darkness forever. According to prophets, only a handful will pass the final test, and those will no doubt be the ones without the intellect to engage in curiosity.

814 posted on 07/08/2004 12:58:31 PM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: js1138

How is a parasite's requirement for food different from other organisms?


815 posted on 07/08/2004 12:58:34 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Ah, questions...

How astute of you. Now questions beg answers, do you have any to clear up exactly what you meant?

816 posted on 07/08/2004 1:00:43 PM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
How is a parasite's requirement for food different from other organisms?

Because the species will not survive without the host. There is a sense in which nearly all species are parasitic, but some more obviously than others.

I am really trying to bridge the conceptual gap between cellular life and such entities as viruses and prions.

817 posted on 07/08/2004 1:07:31 PM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry
I'm not quite sure what Patrick meant myself

Ok. We have established you also recognize it as gibberish.

OK, next: "I don't know what you mean by most of the words you use so there are ambiguities."

818 posted on 07/08/2004 1:12:59 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Borders are fuzzy but hell is murky.


819 posted on 07/08/2004 1:15:18 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
And let's not forget what the real issue is here. It's the same as it was back in Darwin's day. There are a lot of people who believe in naturalism because it's the only alternative to special creation (as stated by some of the top defenders of Darwin in his own day such as Spencer and Huxley). Even though many of these champions of Darwin didn't accept his version of evolution, Darwinism gave them a materialist hook to hang their hopes on and for that they praised him:
Spencer "cheerfully acknowledged" that the hypothesis of evolution had "serious difficulties." But, he said, "save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis or no hypothesis." Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Psychology, 1896, 1:466.

"I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it. But...I would very strongly urge upon you [Lyell] that it is the logical development of Uniformitarianism, and that its adoption would harmonize the spirit of Paleontology with that of Physical Geology." Thomas Henry Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1903, 3 volumes, 1:252.

"The possibility, ever so distant, of banishing from nature its seeming purpose, and putting blind necessity everywhere in the place of final causes, appears, therefore, as one of the greatest advances in the world of thought." Emil du Bois-Reymond, 1904, cited in J.T. Merz's A history of European thought in the ninetheenth century. 4 volumes, Dover Pub., 1:435.
The truly funny thing is that the philosophical naturalists of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries were so successful in conflating the doctrines of naturalism and evolution together with biological empiricism that many people today think, erroneously, that the essence of science, any field of science, is materialist monism ("The Cosmos is all there is, was, or ever shall be." paraphrase of Carl Sagan). And they could probably even read the following without batting an eye over its sheer intellectual stupidity:
Darwin's theory "turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any hesitation of of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being." (emphasis added)--Karl Vogt.

820 posted on 07/08/2004 1:37:37 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,201-1,207 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson