Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
The effect of an idea about the nature of reality on it's holders is not a reasonable measure of it's likely truth.
Do you really think "universal gravitation" is as speculative as evolution?
Universal gravitation failed the perihelion of mercury experiment and had to be revised; because it now fails the dark matter experiment, serious physicists are proposing yet another revision; and it is now beginning to come under revisionist attack from the forces of quantum gravity.
There isn't a particle of difference between assuming a continuous flow of evolution between fossil finds in distinct layers of dirt, and the assumption that the law of gravity exists over large distances containing nothing but vaccum, where no experimentation or data-gathering whatsoever has been done.
The inductive evidence available to support evolution is more fine-grained, abundant, available and accessable than that supporting universal gravitation. That's why there are dozens of referreed technical journals in the biological sciences whose detailed work is predicated on the notions of evolution.
Miller has no need of headlines. He is tenured, and is the co-author of one of the most respected basic biology textbooks in current use.
he has not disproved Behe
He had no need to. Behe made numerous predictions about explanations of verious apparently-too-complex-to-evolve biological machines that would never be published in technical journals. Some of which had already been published when his book was written. Apparently bench-checking was not his forte.
(and BTW the argument of the secretory system is not his originally so he may also be guilty of plagiarism).
Fat chance. Miller's books are top-heavy with current cites from the journals.
The real question is what people can accomplish when they are free to follow the truth without fear of arrest or damnation. (There are people posting currently on FR who have decided my soul is in peril because I do not tow the line on belief.)
Fine with me. I have no desire to spend eternity with a God who punishes people for their beliefs. Had enough of that here on earth.
If only every prophecy was so reliable...
This statement applies equally to any belief system, including evolution. Regardless of the volume of inductive evidence, or how fine-grained it is, in the end it is a belief system that foists itself upon the public arena as if it were absolute truth.
A good example of how science handles new ideas can be found in the way it handled quantum theory. Nothing in the realm of human ideas has upset so many long held and intuitive ideas.
Evolution is not a belief system. It is simply a scientific theory in which the vast majority (of scientists, if it need be said) have a high degree of confidence.
Evolution entails fundamental assumptions concerning the origin, purpose, and destination of life and all its elements. Those assumptions in turn have a tremendous bearing on how one conducts himself toward others and the world at large. It would be disingenuous to descibe it as anything less than a belief system.
Maybe scientists are the last to admit they have any beliefs, but in the end, that's all they have. They are no better in terms of ultimate knowledge and understanding than a superstitious pigmy. I suppose we can all pretend they know it all, but I refuse to give them equal or better status in determining what goes into public school textbooks.
Maybe I haven't been keeping up. I am not aware of a theory of evolution that also addresses the origin and purpose of life. Would you mind posting a short summary of it?
We should be so lucky. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is a little less transparent than that one ;)
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.