Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."
[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
Various environmental pressures pushed a certain group of apes into a direction that culminated with humans. Other apes did not have those pressures. Our ancestors were probably "Savannah Apes," rather than jungle apes (like gorillas, for example). They experienced different environmental pressures than their jungle ape cousins.
In short, the first life form came as a result of many sub components of sub components that were many times more likely to develop. And their interactions were not random because their properties narrowed the range of what was possible or probably. I’m not prepared to readdress this today. If interested in real and current evolutionary theories that Wayne chose not to address, you can see more here .
There was a long AP article in my local newspaper yesterday about how these guys were complaining about how Bush had cut funding for science. In the entire 25-paragraph complaint, there wasn't a single number!! They must be on their all-too-frequent approach: "I'm a PhD, therefore shut your brains off and believe what I tell you".
Some monkeys evolved into more monkeys. You should do your homework and learn the basics of science before you jump in with dumb questions. PatrickHenry gave the links early in this thread that will bring you up to speed...that is, of course if you want to know more about what you are arguing against. Otherwise, you don't have credibility.
Fallacy of origin. A person's opinion on other issues has no bearing on their position on evolution or their qualification to speak thereof.
In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.
Do you agree?
Like virtually all scientists, he's right on the evolution issue. It's not really debatable among those who understand it. That's the bottom line. But if you're so big on sources, consider mine: I'm a Republican.
Probably zero. You DO understand that;
1. Monkeys and apes are NOT the same;
2. Evolution is a response to environmental and other pressures on a population. since those factors are wildly different in different locales and times, what something COULD evolve into is pretty unpredictable.
Some just refuse to evolve :)
Pure gold, in other words.
"Also, whatever the first biological life was, it certainly wasn't as complex as modern life."
Some whould argue that first life was as complicated as a 747. I think that's what the argument is.
A whole host of reasons could be responsible. The collapse of a land bridge, continental drift, glaciers etc.
If there are isolated tribes of humans say in the Andes, what are the chances they will devolve into monkeys?
If there were environmental pressures that pushed those humans into becoming more chimp-like, there is a chance that could happen. However, it is difficult to see what type of environmental pressure would do that.
It is a fact that humans in the Americas pre-Columbus were drifting down a different evolutionary path than the rest of humanity. There is a much higher rate of miscarriages when one parent is of American Indian descent and the other is not, for example.
What about primates isolated in a deep forest somewhere - what would cause them to evolve into humans?
Not much. It's doubful that any other ape or monkey species would ever evolve into humans.
“Nothing's more tiring on these Crevo threads than having to debunk the same tired, ignorant, wrong ideas and beliefs of evolution, like this whole "why are there still monkeys?" tired argument that creationists always try to make.”
There are tired caricatures on both sides of the crevo debate, though I noticed the ‘flat-earth, thingy, hasn’t been brought up yet;)
I noticed one poster criticized the 747 analogy on the grounds that biological life is capable of reproducing. Well….what does the 747 analogy attempt to illustrate but the vast improbabilities entailed in getting from point A [simple organic cmpds] to B [biology]??
Given pre-existent biology is cheating, according to the analogy. Also, ‘simple-cells’ or ‘simple biology’ is profoundly oxymoronic given the current state of knowledge in molecular and cellular biology. Even a relatively simple cell or virus is astoundingly complex if only from an informational standpoint.
Of course, we all know that abiogenesis is considered out of bounds [most vociferously by the Darwinists] in the crevo debate ; the problem is, if biology didn’t come into existence through some process of self-organization, this has severe implications for the central thrust of Darwin’s theory.
And that, is to put it mildly.
Hence, the debate; it’s not going to go away, its only going to get more interesting as time goes on.
Keep your eye on Dembski.
Omar.
"But if you're so big on sources, consider mine: I'm a Republican."
I don't get how so many conservatives are ignorantly trying to find a tie between objective science and politics. If a Democrat tells these people the earth is a spheroid, will they be suspicious of this fact since a Dem is telling it to them? The implications are frightening.
A quote from your link "how life MIGHT HAVE ARISEN". I suppose that my Bible is a study of how life MIGHT HAVE ARISEN.
"MIGHT HAVE" sounds awful speculative to me.
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.