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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mongo? As in Blazing Saddles?"
Yep. Mongeaux only pawn in game of life...
When I read Darwin's Origin of Species, I didn't notice him predicting you could stimulate an amoeba into morphing into an elephant. You appear to be ignorant of what evolution actually is or says.
Scientists have a limited outlook because they want to believe in a world which exists physically and stuff happens physically and randomly, with no purpose or plan behind it all. This desire for there to be no purpose is not scientific. The mere existence of life, its evolution or whatever you want to call it, and especially the development of consciousness are incredible mysteries. Even if I attribute it all to nature and not to God, Why?? Why does it all exist, and why did we rise up from nature to look back on it all and reflect? Science not only doesn't know, it doesn't want to know.
Why don't you knock over a few ignorant yahoo strawman mischaracterizations of evolution and wait for your Nobel Prize?
Careful there. If you DARE to question the theory of evolution you will be denigrated as an ignorant, slope-headed, bible thumping fool.
Doesn't matter what man thinks about man. What really matters is how God sees a man, as an unbeliever or a believer.
bttt
Their mantra, but their knowledge of Scripture is vast, and they can quote Scripture with the best of them, lol
No. You did not read what I was responding to. The thank a scientist post from Mongo. He worships science so I asked why they can't take basic elements of animals and alter them.
I'll ask you why they can't create life from the basic elements? If randomness can do it why can't science?
Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
"Darwin's" theory predicts that new fossils found will be more developed in newer rock strata. Perhaps millions of fossils have been cataloged since then, the prediction has held.
Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
I don't know what to make of this, a link would be nice. My field studies report strong natural selection effects for deer that can't hide during deer season.
Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
"Darwin's" theory does'nt address the origins of life. It is not a theory of everything.
The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
If it has'nt been discribed then the above statement is as valid as 'The astonishing and irreducible complexity of thunder has not yet successfully been discribed, let alone explained.' was 100 years ago. You do get the point of that don't you? (my understanding is we pretty much understand thunder today, lightning on the other hand is about as well understood as evolution.)
A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
Examples of the former (no ancestors) should be easy for you to link to then. The latter (no descendants) is obvious.
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.
Again the statement makes little sense. What are classical Darwinian principles? This is science (on evolutions side), we are allowed to change our theorys as new data comes in.
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.
Wrong time scale, and speciation has been forced with lower forms.
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?
More babble. How do creationists account for the similarity of behavior of their little darlings (Homo-simians) on the playground and apes in the zoo?
"Are you here to discuss the thread or bash religion, especially the Judeo-Christian one?"
I have only respect for religions, especially the Judeo-Christian ones. I like to bash SILLINESS, in any form. Creation "Science" especially, although Feminism is fun to bash too...
I agree.
You don't read like a moron. What's your single best evidence for an old earth?
Cute. I am not discussing evolution. I am discussing science.
Can you explain how matter is generated from non-matter?
Where did Bush's advisor say that?
If you don't like science, don't lecture in Science Class. As soon as you get out of High School, just read the comic books you like.
What Darwin did was to observe that living creatures have adapted to their environments. He did not accurately explain how this happened in terms of a physical mechanism, because random mutations have not proven to give rise to sufficient sustainable changes. In other words, by what mechanism does a species change from land dwelling to sea creatures? It isn't because one day a land creature happened to randomly give birth to a sea creature and the sea creature by natural selection had more luck breeding and surviving. A line of changes occurred over millions of years by which the species changed in a purposeful direction. When it was done the land species was gone and the sea dwelling species existed. But what process triggers and guides these changes is unknown. Nature seems to have an inate ability to develop life, and life seems to have an inate ability to progress to more complex organisms including consciousness. This did not all just randomly happen from a random single cell of life. It is following a path, whether that path is God or nature.
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.