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 states 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 Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendels 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.
The good professor is engaged in a fool's errand. For one thing, "Intelligent Design" is irrefutable; this is one reason it is not scientific. For another, he will find it very hard to "refute" the longing that draws people to it; hint, it has nothing to do with science.
I am definitely a secularist but do not couple evolutionary theory with abiogenesis. That makes you wrong.
Furthermore, most do not - just poll the "secularists" posting to this thread and you will see. That makes you wronger.
Some (most?) science "educators", however, are not even tolerant of the creationist's point of view.
That's funny, many creationists conclude that without the need for any "facts".
Some (most?) science "educators", however, are not even tolerant of the creationist's point of view.
That's because it's not science. And, of course, "creationism" tends to cover about 103 different creation myths - why should they choose yours over any others to waste time on in a science class?
To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again"...negating without engaging. The gentlemen and gentlewomen noted above are, I dare say, more qualified than either one of us to discuss a variety of issues on an expert level or, if needed, in a layman's terms.
I merely stated they should have a place at the table, and some bigotry is keeping it from the table. Such attitudes are akin to what happened in the 1920s, when small-minded, threatened, fearful attitudes kept evolution from competing in the arena of ideas.
How do you know that? Are you privy to the inner thoughts of all thinking people? One who asserts that must have the omniscience of a Creator. ;-)
The flat-earth MYTH was a creation of evolutionists to discredit Christianity. See: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
Curiously, I cannot pinpoint the age at which I became an evolutionist. I received all of my education in Germany, where evolution was not really controversial. In the gymnasium (equivalent to a U.S. high school), my biology teacher took evolution for granted. So, I am quite certain, did my parents--who, to interest their three teenage sons, subscribed to a popular natural history journal that accepted evolution as a fact. Indeed, in Germany at that time there was no Protestant fundamentalism. And after I had entered university, no one raised any questions about evolution, either in my medical curriculum or in my preparations for the Ph.D. Those who were unable to adopt creation as a plausible solution for biological diversity concluded that evolution was the only rational explanation for the living world. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)Nevertheless, he continues, Even though creationism was not a major issue, evolutionary biology was nonetheless badly split by controversies, namely, the causation of evolutionary change and the validity of various theories of evolution. These seem pretty all-encompassing. He describes some of the early battles:
Did you know that believers in natural selection were in the minority in the 1920s, and that many evolutionists believed in rapid, saltational change instead of gradualism? You heard one of the living legends of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, say it himself. Notice how nothing has changed. Early 20th century evolutionists disagreed on the mechanism of evolution (natural selection, Lamarckism or other) on the pace of evolution (gradual vs. saltational), and on mechanism of speciation. Those seem like pretty major issues. How can Darwins hunch rise above the status of hypothesis without answers to these questions? The only things they agreed on were: (1) evolution is a fact, and (2) things change. The same controversies go on today; evolutionists fight over how species split into two, how fast things happen, and the role of natural selection, but they all dogmatically claim, still, that (1) evolution is a fact (a statement of belief, not science) and (2) things change (too vague to be called science; even creationists acknowledge that things change).
Mayrs account sounds less like a scientific law emerging from the evidence, and more like a victory of two major factions of storytellers over rivals, until they agreed to give a little and meet in the middle (thesis vs. antithesis -> Synthesis). The new talking points to feed the students became: Father Charlie was right about gradualism and natural selection, but Mendel has helped forge an even better story: mutations provide the raw material for variation, then natural selection preserves the fittest. We will call this neo-Darwinism. Students, liking anything that is neo, thought this is cool. The official sound bite for reporters became, We may have some disagreements about the mechanism of evolution, but all scientists agree evolution is a fact. These short, pithy mythoids suffice to keep most peasants compliant.
Those interested in the relation of Mendel to Darwin will find this paragraph interesting:When Mendels laws were rediscovered [sic] in 1900, there was widespread hope that they would lead to a unification of the conflicting theories on speciation. Unfortunately, it turned out that the three geneticists most interested in evolution--Bateson, DeVries, and Johannsen--were typologists and opted for a mutational origin (by saltation) of new species. Worse, they rejected gradual evolution through the natural selection of small variants. For their part, the naturalists erroneously thought that the geneticists had achieved a consensus based on saltational speciation, and this led to a long-lasting controversy between the naturalists and the early Mendelians.Long-lasting, all right; it was about 47 years before the Darwinians found a way to incorporate Mendels inconvenient laws into their story.
Textbooks present Darwinism as if it were so intuitively obvious that late 19th century scientists instantly saw the light and embraced it, and lived happily ever after. As we know from frequent reports on Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory in these pages, controversies still rage about the mechanisms of evolution, the pace of evolution, and the mechanism of speciation. Nothing has changed except the power of the Darwin Party to enforce their views.
How tragic to hear that the Reformation was dead in Germany by the time Mayr went to school. The country where Martin Luther had taken his brave stand on the Word of God had cast off its heritage for a radical revolutionary, Ernst Haeckel, who replaced it with the Word of Charlie. The early Protestant reformers had the will to withstand the Catholic counter-reformation, but their heirs, asleep at the switch, let the Darwinian revolution take over with hardly a word of protest. So now the revolution has become the mainstream, controlling the propaganda outlets, the universities, the schools and the official creation myths of the culture. The rallying cry for the Darwinian revolution is just-so storytelling by faith, not by lab work. Instead of A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, the official anthem is (to the tune of For Hes a Jolly Good Fellow), We all take Charlie for granted (3X), which nobody can deny. Try to deny it and face the wrath of the counter-reformation (see 08/19/2003 headline).
.
Good one!
What can you measure outside of the natural world?
It's a little sad to see someone who obviously has a bright mind use it in the service of denying the plain reality of what's going on.
Case in point: The Mayr article. Mayr is describing a momentous time in biology when several strands of thinking - which undoubtedly seemed to work & make sense within certain limits - were unified & clarified & in some cases refuted by a better theoretical framework.
That is an exciting, heroic, and utterly moral story. If Coppedge would just take away his apologetical blinders & drop his emotional defensiveness just a bit, he'd find there's a wonderful world of honest scientific exploration out there, happening right before his very eyes.
Dear John,As you know, We've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in our schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the supreme court and get the old devil-inspired ruling reversed.
Naturally, we were all excited by the school board action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more though)is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.
After the first day of school, I asked him "how did the prayer time go?"
"Fine."
"Did many kids go out into the hallway?"
"Two."
"Excellent. How did you like your teachers prayer?"
"It was different, dad. Real different from the way you pray."
"Oh? Like how?"
"She said,'Hail Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners...'"
The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudiced against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.
At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross-legged, closed his eyes, raised his hand palms up in the air and began to hum.
You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. 'I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices an older, more established religion.
That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school.
"I don't think you're going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer,either, Dad."
"Out with it."
"She kept chanting Namu Amida Butsu..."
The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot.
"Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher who prays in Jesus' name!"
"What about Bertha Smith?"
"Excellent."
I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang.
"Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car.
"Okay."
"Okay what?"
"Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus' name, amen just like you."
I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place."
"She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy.
I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?"
"Lets see..." he mused for a moment. "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God."
We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said reaching for the door handle. Then paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"
"Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18."
"Nephi what?"
"Nephi," he said. "It's in the Book of Mormon.
The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'LL sue. I'LL take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.
Same for the homeopaths, the scientologists, the aura readers, the etc...
Science is not a democratic process, you do not get to "win" a place at the table. If all of your "research" is clumsy, illogical, and based on wishful thinking rather than evidence, you will not get a place at the table, no matter how many scientific illiterates you can get on your side.
Nothing, really, which is why it's not a scientific notion. On the other hand, if a natural process can be described which accounts for the allegedly created item, the question then becomes why, given that a natural explanation exists, would it be flat-out rejected in favor of a supernatural "explanation"? In other words, why reject that which is comprehensible, in favor of that which, by definition, is incomprehensible?
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.