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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No apology will be issued. Your reply to 9 read to me like I'll see you and raise you five. English is very nuanced so interpretation is a factor.
Wrong. See for instance, J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992: 'Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory.' Science 46(4):1214-1220.
"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 don't worship Science - but I like what it has done for me. Science saved my little daughters life twice and mine a few times too.
I worship Nicole Kidman! Yummmm.....
You missed the point; biochemistry, since the evidence shown in modern microscopes, show no "primitive" processes.
Chance cannot produce a single cell, let alone the human brain.
I'm not trying to make this a scripture thread. I asked simple questions about basic elements and science and they attack with jibberish and avoid my simple question.
No apology will be issued.
I wouldn't think so. I could have raised him a million but either way it wasn't about religion and you are still wrong.
Darwinites probably accept Global Warming. It's where the tax money is!
huh....?
"So Judaism and Christianity are not silly? But the Genesis account of creation is? How do you reconcile that? Also, do you consider circumcision, genital mutilation?"
Creation "Science" is silly. So is literal interpretation of the Bible. The Genesis account of creation in the bible is a beautful myth. But Myth it remains.
bump to the top(bttt)
I can talk evolution all day but it is dull and boring so I asked you a simple question in #50 and you can't answer it. I'm not surprised.
Ping!
Then answer the question dummie.
well, you are a double -minded man and a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways
Nicole is nice.
"bttt" means "bump to the top". I'm just bumping your thread to the top of the list. :)
"bttt" means "bump to the top". I'm just bumping your thread to the top of the list. :)
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.