BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Has Darwin Become Dogma?
500 years ago science revolted against theological dogma as the source of all knowledge. Today it is science that is trying to assume the mantle of the sole arbiter of truth. On magazine covers such as this month's National Geographic and in legal battles across the country, the scientific community has become absolute in its belief that evolution will answer all of the questions regarding our beginnings. They have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions this belief is considered a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence.
November 11, 2004
Dear Concerned Citizen, by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century. Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?" It's that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So, what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the next page and we find our answer, a resounding 'NO' printed in a font a third of the page high. But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the apparently foolish question 'Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about. The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are told, are 'fundamentalist Christians','ultraorthodox Jews', and 'Islamic creationists', all of whom view evolution as a threat to their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the ones ruffling National Geographics feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, 'Other' people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
"Why are there so many antievolutionists?' they ask impatiently. Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question 'Was Darwin Wrong?' the proper answer is not a clamorous 'NO' but a well-informed 'Yes and No'. While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: 'despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support." Are these the words of a 'fundamentalist Christian', 'ultraorthodox Jew', or an 'Islamic creationist'? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully insufficient to perform the amazing feats promised in the title of Darwins great work of producing new species.
But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among individuals are 'selected' by nature because they make the individual more 'fit' to survive. Those more 'fit' characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution will have produced an entirely new species.
So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire diversity of all living things could be produced.
That was the grand promise of Darwins theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders contend that, "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." Darwins theory is in crisis, they argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its promise so grand; how new species arise.
I quote the words of Brian Goodwin, Mae-Wan Ho, and Peter Saunders because they represent the growing number of scientific dissenters from orthodox Darwinism (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism). National Geographic makes no mention of them. That would make the quick and confident 'No' into a rather sheepish "well, sort of".
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwins theory. One suspects reading between the lines that the real reason that National Geographic suddenly 'doth protest too much' against doubters of Darwinism, is that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has done so much to bring the scientific and philosophical problems with evolutionary theory into the public spotlight. They cannot draw attention to the ID movement, however, or people might become more informed about the difficulties that beset Darwinism. So, we return to the question, 'Was Darwin Wrong?" National Geographic says "NO". But readers who aren't satisfied with such simple answers should read the following books.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box
Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots
John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism
Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism Scientific Difficulties with Darwinism
The origin of life: Darwin conjectured that all life was descended from a single, simple form. But where did the first living thing come from? In a now famous private letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin offered a conjecture: if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, then we could explain the origin of life as a lucky chemical reaction. Against this hope, origin of life researchers have fallen on hard times. While there were some initial victories in the laboratory, generating small amounts of pre-biological molecules, scientists are unable to generate anything more biologically interesting unless they artificially rig their experiments in ways that contradict the actual conditions of early Earth.
The problem is so acute that many origin of life scientists have given up, and are now turning their efforts to trying to discover ways that complex, life-seeding molecules may have been delivered from space. Alas, the problems facing such efforts are just as severe.
The fossil record: According to Darwin, evolution had to occur very slowly, through slight changes not by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, the fossil record does not support such gradual transformation. Instead, species seem to appear quite suddenly, fully formed, stay the same for millions of years, and then just as suddenly disappear. The most significant problem for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion, where quite suddenly, about 550,000,000 years ago, all the major phyla of the animal kingdom appear in the fossil record.
The Truth About Inherit the Wind "Of course, such a simple choice between bigotry and enlightenment is central to the contemporary liberal vision of which Inherit the Wind is a typical expression. But while it stands nominally for tolerance, latitude, and freedom of thought, the play is full of the self- righteous certainty that it deplores in the fundamentalist camp. Some critics have detected the play's sanctimonious tone-"bigotry in reverse," as Andrew Sarris called it-even while appreciating its dramatic quality and well-written leading roles. The play reveals a great deal about a mentality that demands open-mindedness and excoriates dogmatism, only to advance its own certainties more insistently-that promotes tolerance and intellectual integrity but stoops to vilifying the opposition, falsifying reality, and distorting history in the service of its agenda.
In fact, a more historically accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial than Inherit the Wind might have been far richer and more interesting-and might also have given its audiences a genuine dramatic tragedy to watch. It would not have sent its audience home full of moral superiority and happy thoughts about the march of progress. The truth is not that Bryan was wrong about the dangers of the philosophical materialism that Darwinism presupposes but that he was right, not that he was a once great man disfigured by fear of the future but that he was one of the few to see where a future devoid of the transcendent would lead. The antievolutionist crusade to control what is taught in the schools may not have been the answer, and Bryan's own approach may have been too narrow. But the real tragedy lies in the losing fight that he and others like him waged against a modernity increasingly deprived of spiritual foundations." Carol Inannone First Things
The Debate Rages On Although nearly 100 years have passed since the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, the debate rages on. In Grantsburg, Wisconsin a firestorm of critique was leveled against the school board this month for revising its science curriculum to include more than one model/theory of origin in the districts science curriculum. Current Wisconsin state law mandates that evolution be taught but the school board viewed the law as too restrictive.
Similar skirmishes are being fought around the country. Ever since the Scopes Trial, the ACLU has been an active player, bringing lawsuits against any group who questions the Darwin dogma in school curriculum. After a group of parents in Cobb County Georgia complained about the exclusive presentation of evolution as the sole theory of origin in three biology textbooks in 2002, stickers were placed in the science texts intended to remind students to keep an open mind. Now the ACLU is representing another group of parents in a lawsuit against that school district claiming that the stickers promote the teaching of creationism and discriminate against particular religions.
The Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania recently voted to include the theory of 'intelligent design' and other alternative theories to evolution in their science curriculum. Similar action was taken by the Ohio board of education this spring when they narrowly approved a similar plan. Critics charge it risks a return to teaching creationism.
To say that evolution has not answered all the scientific questions regarding our origins does not suggest you have to teach creationism in schools as a scientific theory. What should be taught is an honest assessment of what science does and does not know regarding our beginnings. The questions regarding our origins are too big for science alone to answer. People of faith should not allow themselves to be relegated to an anti-science position for questioning Darwin. Questioning the validity of theories is what science is supposed to do.
Benjamin Wiker Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA). He is now a Lecturer in Theology and Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville (OH), and a full-time, free-lance writer. Dr. Wiker writes regularly for a variety of journals, including Catholic World Report, New Oxford Review, Crisis Magazine, and First Things, and is a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Dr. Wiker just released a new book called Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius). His first book, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, was released in the spring of 2002 (InterVarsity Press). He is writing another book on Intelligent Design for InterVarsity Press called The Meaning-full Universe.
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org. © Copyright 2004 - tothesource
The story you presented is a characiture of what some people believe. You presume too much if you say that everyone who believes that the theory of evolution has a great deal of evidence to favor it and is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life also believes your story. Personally, I believe that God created the universe via the big bang. He then allowed it to proceed according to the laws of nature that He designed for it. At the appropriate time, life formed from a collection of non-living molecules. God designed the laws of nature in such a way as to ensure that this would happen. Once life began, it continued to make imperfect copies of itself. Some of these imperfect copies survived to reproduce better than others. Small changes resulting from the imperfection of the reproduction eventually resulted in all the life forms seen today. I am not maintaining that God could not play a direct role in the universe. I am maintaining that He designed it all so well that He didn't have to.
But you previously stated that the theory of evolution is not on as firm ground as relativity because evolution is about "things that haven't been observed." This implies that relativity is about things that have been. Therefore, since relativity is about the curvature of space-time, please tell me when the curvature of space time has been observed or correct your previous line of debate. (or correct my understanding of what you were saying)
The limb is gone, but the nerve that serviced it is still there. The nerve ending where it was cut is still coiled in the end of the cut limb. The nerve ending may be transmitting, or the nerve itself may have a signal induced onto it by surrounding activity that the brain decodes as coming from the limb that isn't there anymore.
Worshipping man in his guise as 'science god' has killed your sense of wonder and made you into a pedestrian creature enslaved by the whims of capricious, deceitful men.
Oh but lest we forget....... you're 'enlightened"......by what you really don't know, but it places you on the same footing as the King in the "Kings New Clothes".
The problem we have communicating is that I think you and Alamo engage in reductionism when defining the concept of "physical".
Is a quark a physical object? A photon? An electron? Do you believe these represent the end of our understanding of the physical? How do you assign limits to the properties of physical objects?
Subatomic particles have properties that were not imagined by our ancestors. Heck, they have properties that are impossible to imagine, and which have to be described by mathematics. If you place arbitrary limits to the properties of physiclity, then you are going to wind up with a lot of phenomena that are excluded.
helllooo-oooo! will men ever land on the moon?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. -Richard Dawkins
Of course, Dawkins Also posits that worms should have rights too.
Then you should be glad.
Dawkins is limited by his own incredible blind loyalty to materialism. His statement about religion was not only inaccurate, it was a deliberate lie. Dawkins most certainly knew the founders of modern science were mostly Christian. Actually, it is the materialists who gladly renounce reason when necessary and happily embrace a chauvinistic devotion to a rusty mis-firing oil-burning philosophy that has no explanitory power.
;-)
Steelers will kick *ss against Cleveland this weekend.
When you say "the mind", do you mean the brain, or some faculty that would continue to feel pain if the brain were removed?
Evolution is a THEORY about what happened to cause variations in life forms.. it is not a fact.. Creationism is also a theory.. Both explanations are handed down by proponents of the "faithful".. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults, and creationism is a fairy tale for adults and children.. Creationism is a more fully vetted and refined unproven theory. The truth is nobody knows how life began, really, how could "we".. Preachers of evolution have no proof, only things that appear to have happened in such and such of a way..
Biblical proponents used ancient "sayings" that could very well be metaphors.. and probably are to explain things.. The Adam and Eve story as an example.. That story could very be a metaphor.. and probably is..
Talking to the "faithful" on both sides of this issue can be attacking their "faith".. as they see it.. I have attacked both sides for many years and LOVE the drooling tongue hanging out responses of both sides..
Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete, AND DID(his words)...
Much more important an event than how did "feathers" evolve"
What would a real God even NEED with a religion anyway?
Religion is probably an invention of "Satan" if there is such a thing.
And evolution theory is simply a reaction to a really good metaphor.. that "liberals can't understand" so they thunk up their own theory.
Kind of like republicans and democrats, both socialists but its only the degree of socialism in question... and how to morph this republic into being a democracy most efficiently. Democracy sucks, always, in every place, at ever time.. and socialism is a symptom of the political degradation of a democracy being created.. Same with evolution theory, it is a symptom of creationists that have lost "faith" or rejected good metaphorical myth like Buddism or Hinduism and have "faith" in something that "could have happened", BUT DIDN'T.. Evolution "faithful" basically believe in partial truth, because some "mental figments" of the "faithful" are proven facts but they "expand" on those facts to fairy tale like deductions and call them facts TOO.. The evolutionists disease is, "WHAT IF"... They throw bullshit agaisnt the wall and whatever sticks... MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. A very dirty business and the "faithful" are very "ripe"..
Know what I mean ?...
These things may represent the beginning of our understanding of the physical; none of them seems to be exhaustively understood as yet. Also, the entire idea of a "physical object" probably needs to be rethought; for all such objects are such as they are because of their participation in universal fields (e.g., particle, gage, Higgs fields). That which is perceived to be "solid" may not actually be so; rather "solidity" may be but the surface presentation of a phenomenon that has a nature and causes that run deeper than we can see from our perch in 3+1D spacetime.
As to physical objects, all things are composed of matter. Matter's other "face" is energy. Here's a question for you: Is energy "physical?" By this I mean energy in contradistinction to force, which seems to be a physical property of objects.
BTW, I don't know the answer to this question. I'm just wondering out loud here. I'd be interested in your view.
In any case, I don't see the basis for your remark that A-G and I are reductionists, because I think it's fair to say neither she nor I knows for a fact what things could possibly "reduce" to when there is still so much that we don't know. I think it's fair to say that we both tend to be open-minded and curious. FWIW.
I also think it's fair to say we both love scientific inquiry and the world of episteme more generally. And neither of us buys into the idea of the so-called "Cartesian split."
[Dear A-G, forgive me for speaking for you! If I've misrepresented your views, please do correct me!!!]
What I am trying to understand is how you became such an a-hole. Something tells me it might be your lack of Faith...or...lack of something else.
That's just your a-hole talking.
Didn't Jolson sing a song about that.....?
;-)
Actually, things are only solid because of the Pauli Exclusion principle. In fact, were it not for Pauli's Principle, you would fall directly to the Center of the Earth (without passing GO or collecting $200).
It appears to me that the quantum world is addressed in different ways by three different disciplines. Quantum mechanics is non-relativistic and speaks to bosons, leptons, quarks, etc. I tend to think of particles as the messenger constructs or placemarkers in quantum field theory. To think of them as substantive would be misleading - after all, even ordinary matter under the standard model is not yet observed in laboratory conditions (Higgs field/boson).
When betty boop speaks to quantum physics, she usually approaches it from quantum field theory. The four fundamental fields are strong and weak atomic force, electromagnetism and gravity. There is much speculation about the existence of other fields which may help to explain phenomenon such as information content of the universe and biological systems, etc. She and I are both keenly interested in those subjects.
But the bottom line is that a field exists in all points of space/time, and the mechanism is wave function. IOW, “quantum field theory” is relativistic. Quantum chromodynamics is the quantum field theory for the strong atomic force. Electroweak theory is the quantum field theory for the unified forces of electromagnetism and the weak atomic force. Efforts continue to develop a quantum field theory for gravity – the tiniest of the fundamental forces (relatively speaking).
Which brings me to the third discipline, geometry, which is my personal favorite and which answers your question. All particles and all fields have the characteristic of dimensionality – space/time in our 4D block. That is why they are physical.
Fom my point of view, geometry is the most fundamental approach to physics even at the quantum level. Matter of all kinds can arise from a higher dimensional vacuum, and a higher dimensional shockwave (brane theory, ekprotic cosmology, etc.) can provoke a big bang. In sum, it is the geometry - the expansion of space/time which gives rise to the fields which then give rise to the messenger constructs/placemarkers (or particles).
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.