The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

[Fester Chugabrew]

So you dismiss the life sciences as philosophy?

Not for the most part. Only when they indulge in the Philosophy of Evolution. If you press the life sciences about the certainties of past history they will balk, as they should, because they do not know for sure. And if you press them for predictions about how life will develop they will balk again, because they do not know for sure. Good science does not indulge in conjecture over billions of years. It doesn't need that. It doesn't need The Book of Genesis either.

[shubi]

Sickle cell in the hybrid individual deters malarial infection. Dominate homozygous individuals have no immunity to malaria and are at risk. Recessive homozygous individuals miscarry or die at birth.

[Alacarte]

None of the disciplines you mentioned excelled due to Darwinism.

You think germ theory and antibiotics has nothing to do with evolutionary science?

The Philosophy of Evolution is a mental construct that attempts to ascribe scientific merit to itself.

The scientific community says otherwise. Your word against theirs, and the scientific literature's word. Wonder who knows what their talking about...

[AndrewC]

Sickle cell in the hybrid individual deters malarial infection.

Bull!!! You can't even play a biologist well. It mitigates the infection, it does not deter it. The sickling effect is suspected to have ill effects on the infectious entity.

[LiteKeeper]

You have missed the point that is being made. The point is that the only discipline in schools that can't not be questioned, by law, is evolution. You can question theories of economics, history, philosophy, psychology. But you cannot question evolution. There are serious questions about evolution - but they can't be asked. Transitional fossils that are missing, irreducible complexity of organisms, peppered moths, Haeckels embryos, etc.

The issue is the willingness to stand up to critics - and the fact that it is forbidden by law. If I am allowed to teach a subject, and the courts say that noone can question what I teach, that amounts to license to indoctrinate, not teach. Leave creation out of the discussion - that is not the issue.

Do you suspect that there just might be an hypothesis, raised by evolutionists, that have turned out to be untrue? How would you know if you can't ask questions and criticize?

[general_re]

From an evolutionary standpoint, better for a fraction of the population to be seriously anemic than for the whole population to be dead of malaria. But you know this.

[Outraged]

First, there is tonnes* of evidence for how humanity evolved from hominids...(*a tonne is a metric ton (~2200 pounds). Since this is bigger than the ton, you know their is a lot more evidence for evolution than you thought.)

Sure, and there are tonnes* of metric refuse at the local garbage dump, demonstrating absolutely nothing but a mind boggling amount of crap (perfect environment for maggots and toxins to fester)...There is no missing link or current evidence of ongoing evolution, as missing links would be evolving on a continuous and overlapping basis.

All things are similar on an atomic level, which does not suggest we "evolved" from atoms, on the contrary; something orchestrated (brought from chaos to order - the probability of random events resulting in man existing on earth being beyond reason) the chaos of energy and space into what we refer to as "matter."

[narby]

Matter has never been observed apart from both intelligence and design.

Since the universe is made up of matter, what you're saying is that God made the universe.

What's that got to do with Evolution? And where is the evidence for intellegence in the Andromeda Galaxy, except that you believe it must be so?

[Alacarte]

If you press the life sciences about the certainties of past history they will balk, as they should, because they do not know for sure.

I think the explanatory power of evolution for how life evolved is utterly incredible and detailed. The relationships between different species, and why they adapted the way they have...

And if you press them for predictions about how life will develop they will balk again,

What are you basing this on? Were you recently given floor time at a biology conference?

Good science does not indulge in conjecture over billions of years.

So those aren't stars in the sky? Regardless, it's you against the scientific community.

[AndrewC]

From an evolutionary standpoint, better for a fraction of the population to be seriously anemic than for the whole population to be dead of malaria. But you know this.

And you know that malaria is not 100% fatal to non-carriers.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You think germ theory and antibiotics has nothing to do with evolutionary science?

There is no such thing a "evolutionary science." Germ theory and antibiotics have progressed in spite of the Philosophy of Evolution, and they will continue to do so.

The scientific community says otherwise.

The scientific community can say what it wants about itself. As soon as it starts spouting off as if it KNOWS what happened billions of years ago it has stepped outside the limits of science and ventured into the realm of wishful thinking, i.e. the Philosophy of Evolution.

[general_re]

Carrying isn't a guarantee of survival either, but your odds are greatly improved:

"Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality."

[Fester Chugabrew]

I think the explanatory power of evolution for how life evolved is utterly incredible and detailed.

Incredible? I'll say! Detailed? Oh yeah. How about "Infallible?" How about "Not worthy of questioning?" Go ahead. Take science further than it's willing to go on it's own.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What are you basing this on?

Just a little discourse with your fellow evo's who, when asked what the Theory of Evolution can predict about the future state of man based upon our current knowledge of "billions of years of history," suddenly, well . . . BALKED.

[Alacarte]

The point is that the only discipline in schools that can't not be questioned, by law, is evolution.

I don't think this is true. You'll have to provide some references.

There are serious questions about evolution - but they can't be asked. Transitional fossils that are missing, irreducible complexity of organisms, peppered moths, Haeckels embryos, etc.

You cannot take things from creationist websites and expect to pass them off as scientific arguments. The scientific community has no problem with any of these classical creationist arguments against evolution. They are not science. I know you took ALL those things from a creationist website. Go try to find them on a real science website, then we can talk about them. I can save you some time... they don't exist on real science websites because they aren't true.

and the fact that it is forbidden by law.

If this is true then I agree it is wrong, but I think you've been very misled by a dishonest creationist website. Evolution is not treated any differently than any other scientific theory.

Do you suspect that there just might be an hypothesis, raised by evolutionists, that have turned out to be untrue? How would you know if you can't ask questions and criticize?

I'm sure there are thousands of hypotheses posited by evolutionary scientists that turned out to be wrong, same thing as in every field, what's your point?

[narby]

There is no such thing a "evolutionary science."

You're just delusional, Fester.

[Outraged]

“There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” -- Michael Behe "Darwin's Black Box," (1996) pg. 185

[narby]

Just a little discourse with your fellow evo's who, when asked what the Theory of Evolution can predict about the future state of man based upon our current knowledge of "billions of years of history," suddenly, well . . . BALKED.

Hey Fester, you're not the biologist. If the biologist guys say that Evolution isn't predictive, who are you to claim otherwise?

That makes about as much sense as trying to build a God-o-meter. But you ID guys say you can "prove God with science", so a God-o-meter must be possible.

[AndrewC]

Carrying isn't a guarantee of survival either, but your odds are greatly improved:

Improved between the ages of 2 months to 16 months. But look at the HbSS and that goes on from here to eternity.

[185JHP]

BTTT