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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent Prediction!
The very next post fulfilled it.
The BASIC mechanism of evolution is well known---mutation PLUS selection. Neither one by itself does the job. Together they are all that is required. The ONLY valid SCIENTIFIC criticism of evolution is that sometimes evolution happens more quickly than "normal" mutation rates (molecular clocks) alone can account for ("punctuated equilibrium").
The "criticisms" in the posted article are mostly strawmen, or valid only in the minds of the "creation science" types.
The evolutionary worldview is not in trouble. Go ask GW Bush's science advisor, who said a few weeks ago that ID is not a theory.
So your position is it doesn't matter how ridiculous or murderous a religion is in your book it's ok with you.
The only time you take offense with religion is when they claim that science actually supports their scriptures.
Do I have that right?
I don't think that is an accurate account of God's creation. You go ahead and believe Darwin.
I don't think that is an accurate account of God's creation. You go ahead and believe Darwin.
The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.So, if IC hasn't even "successfully been described, let alone explained", then why is everyone so impressed with Behe's book??? He didn't successfully describe what it is he claims is the problem!
Or, as Vade has pointed out elsewhere, the mystery of IC is so mysterious, the IC advocates can't even successfully describe the mystery itself. Now that's mysterious!
Here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359489/posts?page=10#10
You'll never see me act like a punk concerning religion, except Islamofacism.
If you want to take me on bring it on. Bring some friends.
"Look nooobies. If you want to discuss your feelings fine. Do so calmly and rationally. Do not attack the other posters for having a religious point of view. I will not sit here while you act like high school punks. Understood?"
I understand and agree my rhetoric is strongly satiric, but I disagree that "I was just discussing my feelings". This is an old debate - men like Galileo and Descartes fought it along with countless others. They paid a price.
Did you get a disease diagnosed with an MRI? Thank Science.
Kid doesn't have Rickets this winter? thank Science.
Men: do you think you will enjoy the extra 20 years added to your lifespan? Thank Science.
Yeah I wrote it, AND I can read. Where is the part about mocking religion come in?
I must disagree. Random mutations do not explain the steady progress of evolutionary changes. Changes occur, and these can be called mutations, but the mechanism by which a whole species goes from living on land to living in the sea is not explained by random mutation. Nor by natural selection dealing with the random mutations that do occur. Further, similar species have evolved in lands isolated from one another, such as Australia. There appears to be some inate quality that causes life to evolve and make use of the environment in various ways.
Feel free to change seats as the mood strikes you.
"So your position is it doesn't matter how ridiculous or murderous a religion is in your book it's ok with you.
The only time you take offense with religion is when they claim that science actually supports their scriptures.
Do I have that right?"
Sorry, no Danny you got it backwards. The wacky violent religions I have a problem with. That was what I meant when I said:
"I have no problem with religions that don't own waterslides, require their members to surgically remove genitalia or crash airplanes into things. But using science to validate Religious Mythology is just SILLY!"
The key word there was "DON'T", however I am addicted to complex grammatical constructions so I don't blame you for getting it confused.
If this is any example of Berlinski's work, he'd have trouble describing a mousetrap.
Post 9 dissed religion then you agreed. A tread is a series of replies. Work on the reading part.
Yeah. It's inheritance, with variation, and natural selection.
Hey Amoeba Man. Haven't seen you in a while. Why don't you make a bold statement about Religion being for dummies or something like that.
There are a lot of unknowns and assumptions in evolution. Of course science is too politicized. You can't question the assumptions. Same thing with global warming. You can drive a Mack Truck through all the unknowns and assumptions, but to raise questions about them gets you thrown out.
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.