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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always knew there was something strange about you. This is how the aliens work their way into our population, awaiting orders from their green masters. How many of you Martians live among us, undocumented as you are?
Just as I suspected; you don't exist!
Going back to my own example, the plate would not be lifted from the ground by this particular ultra-feeble BB pressure. Rather, it would just "weigh" (press down on whatever is under it) microscopically less with the BB stream hitting it than without. In orbit, this means the equilibrium when it happens is slightly higher because of this pressure. But that's it. There is no constant new acceleration.
Am I getting close?
Martians, my patootie. They're from Zeta Reticuli.
Could be the Seventh Planet. Nothing good comes from there.
So when it's "your" birthday, does everyone sing, "Happy judge's daughter's birthday to you/Happy judge's daughter's birthday to you..."?
Just curious. How've you been, RA?
Am I getting close?
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
As for the rest of our contestants, we hope you enjoyed being on the show, and as a consolation prize you'll be provided with the home version of our game, plus other parting gifts.....
The Chinese professor angst on the other thread is a case in point - rather than address the substance of the quote, the entire discussion was derailed to the refusal to attribute the quote and accusations of dishonesty, global condemnations of all associates, etc.
Here's the rub - even if the quote were a clever rephrasing of the sentiment - the substance of the quote remains, which is the entire point of the excerpt of Dr. Cheing's interview at post 145.
Appeal to authority?
This sure SOUNDS good, but it's the INTERPRETATION of the 'research' that is being debated in these threads.
It's WORSE in INDIANA!
If the Enlightened get their way, we'll have daylight savings time again, and OUR poor astronomers will have less time to actually see stars!
How will science advance?
Not really. We're talking about an appraisal of the status of a scientific field. Anyone can make such an appraisal, but you'd tend to trust someone who had worked in the field.
For instance, one of the reasons they use athletes in commercials for athletic apparel is that we presume athletes have some experience with athletic apparel. Consider the alternative:
Physical Chemistry Professor RWP says: "When I need that great takeoff boost and hang time near the bucket, I'm glad I chose Reeboks for my basketball footware needs. They're a slam dunk!
Cut away to the imposing figure of an over-40 college professor, under 6 feet and slightly overweight (and ahem, belonging to the racial group that notoriously can't jump anyway), who can slam dunk only with the assistance of a step-ladder.
placemarker
White men can't JUMP!
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.