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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which impact is directly offset by my balding head.
As much Creationists who stubbornly hold onto the myth of Adam and Eve.
Why? Is this an interrogative science is disallowed?
I always wear a hat outdoors to keep the Earth in its orbit.
"nekkid womenfolk"
They have those?
I gotta get me one!
If Merlot make us smarter then I am Einstein, Boyle, Copernicus AND Homer (Simpson)!
DOH!
Good on ya DB.
And that means there's always room for valid criticism, so it's kind of puzzling what all the fuss is about.
The Scientific realm has recently found that Second Hand Smoke Causes Breast Cancer
With crap like that being passed of as legitimate science, your appeal to science as a harbinger of "truth" is not likely to carry much weight.
That evidence is "master control genes" which are particularly underscored in the discovery of eyelessness evolving concurrently among phyla - especially vertebrates and invertebrates. (Gehring, et al)
Some of the mathematicians (Wolfram, Rocha, etc.) who have entered the debate have suggested the correct formulation is more like autonomous biological self-organizating complexity - which is based on the von Neumann cellular automata model.
Nevertheless, if the CA model is correct it must begin with an algorithm at inception (basic rules for self-organizing complexity) which in itself would be proof of intelligent design.
In addition to this difficulty with happenstance, evolution so far has no explanation for the rise of semiosis (language, encoding/decoding of DNA or RNA), autonomy and complexity (by whichever means you choose - self-organizing, Kolmogorov, physical, functional, specified, etc.).
My personal favorite though is that evolution has no explanation for the rise and continuance of successful communications (Shannon, information) in molecular machines.
In the absence of an explanation by materialists, the Occam's Razor choice is intelligent design.
If science is not a "harbinger of truth", then why do ID backers want to insist it IS a scientific theory? Can't have it both ways.
To think I owe a steady earth to none other than he who offsets my baldheadedness. Thank you. Just remember it's okay to go hatless outdoors in the dark.
"With crap like that being passed of as legitimate science, your appeal to science as a harbinger of "truth" is not likely to carry much weight."
Sure, Science doesn't work. Forget Heart Transplants and Antibiotics. Cars and Telephones. 24 Hours of The Home Shopping Network watched on satellite by tribes in Swaziland.
Garbage, all of it.
The fuss is all about the fact that the "valid criticisms" are never scientific in nature, and rarely even apply to the theory of evolution (ie, the constant describing of evolution as random).
It is becoming exciting as we begin to see more and more good minds begin to focus on these issues.
"It is apparent that ribose cannot be synthesized from formaldehyde by the Butlerow reaction in yields substantially higher than other pentoses and hexoses. Related syntheses may possibly give higher yields of ribose. However, sugars are known to be unstable in aqueous solution, but there are no kinetic data available. We therefore have measured the rate of decomposition of ribose at 60 to 120° and pH's between 4 and 8. The half-life of ribose at 100° and pH 7 is 73 minutes and 34 years at 0°. These results show that ribose is too unstable for prebiotic use unless it is used immediately after its synthesis. The other pentoses and hexoses decompose at a rate approximately proportional to their free aldehyde content. It therefore seems unlikely that sugars could have played a role in the first informational macromolecules." Professor Stanley Miller
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.