Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by metacognative
Opinions
There are valid criticisms of evolution
BY DAVID BERLINSKI
"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."
Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."
Everyone else had better shut up.
In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:
• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?
These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did well made the company $100K in 30 minute. Believe what you wish. I believe in God. I believe he sent his son to DIE for my sins. But I won't push that on you. I still waiting for yall to explain why Scientists cant create life.
That makes for a tough row to hoe when we're dealing with evidence that was present before we, and most of our forefathers were born. Who of us cannot start with a premise? "Real science" - what does that mean? Does it mean an approach and understanding of the universe that squares precisely with objective reality? I trust quantum physics has a basis in reality. As a result, should not epistemological issues ensue across the board where the human species is concerned?
Bottom line: I don't care what generation we are or how smart we make ourselves out to be. We don't know jack schitt about the universe and all it entails. On an amplified editorial note, dogmatic adherents to the philosophy of evolution are like dull, ceaseless windbags; full of themselves while pretending their decades of existence somehow invalidate millennia of recorded history. They need to exit stage right WRT "real science."
My God is huge, you'll see. Twit
Dumazz
"Did well made the company $100K in 30 minute. Believe what you wish. I believe in God. I believe he sent his son to DIE for my sins. But I won't push that on you. I still waiting for yall to explain why Scientists cant create life."
Cool! Welcome back, are you suprised the debate still rages? You should hire me, I need a job - the Mushroom Farm in my basement business didn't go too well...
Of course I live in a trailer.
Otay buckwheat
Not really. You gather what facts you can and then try to fashion a theory. Can that theory be wrong? Of course. But it is still a better process than starting with a premise.
Vade really likes you. He has cans of "coke" up in his Neverland bedroom
Well, sure. Deduction is a good thing. But who can interpret facts and evidence completely apart from a premise? Have you met such a person?
Little men with little minds. Ask them to give you a carbon date on a rock. I wish we'd ban them but their posts are amusing
"Vade really likes you. He has cans of "coke" up in his Neverland bedroom"
Beats Sterno, I guess. For more of my Alcohol-related humor you can go to the "Drinking Stories" section at "Modern Drunkard Magazine Online" at this link
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=20413
and read "Hungover on Judge Judy". I post there under the same nick. I have about 5 other boozy tales there.
Some folks can. Plenty of so-called scientists start with a premise, such as those who promote global warming. And we get a load of nonsense as a result. Good science (and good journalism and good politics and good cooking, for that matter) starts with facts and then crafts a premise.
too risque for me, after all, I am a bible thumper. Drinking too much is a spiritual disease
"I will go in with you. We can make millions of creationist scams just like Ken Ham."
Ok deal, but I say we hire Conspiracy Guy to handle the money. He just made $100G for his company in a half hour.
Sound good?
If you need a job, I understand, I wish I could help you, but I don't know what to tell you. Obviously your humanist outlook is failing you. But I will not preach.
Logging out now to eat supper.
"If you need a job, I understand, I wish I could help you, but I don't know what to tell you. Obviously your humanist outlook is failing you. But I will not preach."
That's ok - I got this sweet Hobbit Creationism thing cooking. And I am raising chinchillas, only I am not sure I got a male and a female - don't know how to check, they're so furry.
I'm a skeptic about this because I have to take someone elses' word for it. Have you worked with this process yourself and observed radioactive decay, or do you believe it has been proven because textbooks have "explained" it? Do you think our observance of radioactive decay is subject to any underlying assumptions that may be false?
Again, I view a good many things with skepticism, particularly in view of the FACT that science has yet to precisely identify what are time, light, energy, space, and matter. Do you really think we all should swallow someone's version of the history of the universe as "scientific" when a jury in our day and age can't even convict OJ?
No, they only show semi-constant rates of decay, not proven over millions of years.
The only thing you can prove is what the ratio is of one material to another, you cannot prove how much material the object started with and in what quanties or portions or places
All you can PROVE is what you have right now.
Well, I guess I'll just have to log off FR, because I have to take someone else's word that as to whether it works or not.
One comes from the other. Try again.
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.