Posted on 10/18/2003 4:43:10 AM PDT by Zender500
No, not really. I apparently read some book by Hegel for a "Great Books" course in college (I think it had "History" in the title) but I don't remember a bit of it. I've tried to read a bit of Haeckel's stuff also, but I couldn't manage it. Almost anything written by a German, particularly in the 19th Century, tends to throw me almost immediately into a semi-catatonic state. The only German book I really remember anything of from that course is Goethe's Faust; and that's only because of the cool speeches by Mephistopheles and the general fantastical nature of the story. Whenever Goethe started getting discursive my brain would start glazing over again.
LOL! Seussian evolution!
:)
Not that I recall. Or ever want to recall.
That's why natural selection is a more precise term than evolution. A lot of people assume that evolution has an upward direction, or a bias towards the more complex. Natural selection has no such implication.
A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry |
Online Store About ICR Acts & Facts Back to Genesis Days of Praise Dr. John's Q&A's Events FAQS Good Science Impact Articles Museum President's Column Publications Radio Research Scientists Scripture Stewardship Tours Tracts
|
|
|
Institute for Creation Research. All rights reserved.
|
Return to Top ø Email Page ø Print Page ø Newsletters ø Donate | |
Looking for Something? | |
Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining from ICR ECFA Member Our site is best viewed at a resolution of 800 x 600 or higher. |
The theory of natural selection is a straightforward adaption of Hegel's dialectic. Instead of synthesis, antithesis, resulting new sythesis, Darwin postulated species, mutations (struggle of the survival of the fittest), adapted or new species. Whether Darwin read Hegel or not I don't know, but it would have been unusual in that day not to have read someone so influential. Intellectuals weren't nearly as specialized in their reading as today. In any event, these ideas were commonly circulated and had influence in many disciplines other than what we call philosophy.
I share Darwin's opinion of Spencer.
Neither is a star's phase transition something you can reproduce in a lab, nonetheless, astronomers don't have a problem theorizing that stars have expected life histories. Like astronomy, paleontology can emulate lab experiments by predicting what they will find, and not find, when they dig in places they haven't dug in before. Which they do.
Your perception that the fossil record is some kind of neat proof of evolution is not exactly true.
Hardly any of the science buffs here have that perception, as there is no such thing as proofs in natural sciences.
The fossil record taken as on overall picture, screams out evolutionary change in a manner that is nakedly obvious, from the smooth morphological transitions from, for example, simple to complex, small to large, and uniform to varigated, over time.
The fact is that there are a number of discontinuities that present problems for evolution
That is not a fact, that is an insubstantial opinion not shared by the vast majority of toilers in the field.
It turns out that the genetic record doesn't match up with the fossil
That is remarkably not true. When Denton, or any of the other creationist science dinks turn around the thinking of the editors of "Nature" and "Science", and the curators of all the museums of natural science, then you may have a talking point here. There is controversy around some of the micro-distinctions that the genetic record tries to draw, which creationist writers have capitalized on far beyond their merits, but the fact actually is that the genetic record, overall, is in remarkable accord with the gross paleontological Tree of Life. If it were not, these smaller controversies would not have started up in the first place.
Certainly. Go read up on all the fun scientists have been having trying to get stable proteins to form without designing them. They can get a couple, but the same processes that create them destroy them just as easily. And that's just the protiens, not full life. You can click here for some of the details if you'd like.
So what? The theory of evolution does not care how life started. Darwin stated this quite explicitly. It is only concerned about the path life took once started. It could have very well been a zap from the High Overlord of Creation, for ought science has to say about it. However, there's no better evidence for that, then for any other explanation you might imagine. So it ain't science. Science is about stuff, not about our capricious imaginings.
But let's turn this around. Perhaps you would like to show me the evidence that life does, in fact, generate spontaniously.
Perhaps so, as soon as you show me some evidence that definitively precludes it.
Heck, even many of the missionaries of evolution on this forum will admit that abiogenesis is a major problem.
Indeed. But not for the main focus of biological science, which is how life behaves now, and whose current operating, fundamental principle is the evolutionary relatedness of species. That's why similar organs in similar species have the same names, and, shockingly, the same functions. Imagine the pointless, toothless chaos biology would be in without the accurate notion of genetic relatedness.
And if you can't, if numerous experiements have shown that we cannot get life to generate spontaniously,
Experimental failures are not proofs, any more than experimental successes are. No laboratory can presently adequately emulate the passage of several billion years.
shouldn't our schools emphasize that to our kids when teaching the theory of evolution as the explanation for life?
I'll assume you mean the explanation for the origins of life.
Most refrain now, in response to pressure from science journalists to avoid feeding the creationists. It has, in fact, never, since Darwin's original statements on the subject, been the position of biological science that the theory of evolution extends back to the original creation of life in any sense that is supported by the major thrust of biological field work. The notion evolved from sloppy science reporting that gave too much emphasis to some tentative flights of fancy & experiments by Miller and others. Those textbooks that don't so refrain are out of alignment with the editors of "Science" and "Nature". This is frustrating and unfortunate, but there is nothing new about it. It took years for plate techtonics to catch on in the elementary text books.
Scientists aren't jailed for flights of fancy, but suggesting that these flights of fancy are position statements by biological science would be equivalent to teaching that astronomy suggests astrological explanations hold water because some astronomers believe in astrology.
There is some interesting work, by Woese, and such, which points to explanations for the origins of life that are naturalistic, and great deal more complex and diffuse than to support the notion of a sudden zapping together of proteins into functional relationships, said which strawman the creationists lean on so heavily to refute by stochastic pseudo-analysis. However, even Woese himself avoids drawing the obvious inference about origins from his own work. Why? Because most everyone involved in biological field work knows science is presently inadequate to address this question meaningfully. Just as Darwin cautioned.
Thank you.
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.