Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There are valid criticisms of evolution
Wichita Eagle ^ | 3/9/2005 | David berlinski

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwinism; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 621-634 next last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: tfecw

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.


62 posted on 03/09/2005 2:44:10 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
In the years since this theory has been presented, nobody has been able to demonstrate the evolution of a single species from one to another.

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.

63 posted on 03/09/2005 2:44:10 PM PST by Tamberlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

"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.....


64 posted on 03/09/2005 2:44:36 PM PST by Mongeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mongeaux
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?
65 posted on 03/09/2005 2:45:12 PM PST by D Edmund Joaquin (Mayor of Jesusland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

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.


66 posted on 03/09/2005 2:46:27 PM PST by metacognative (eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: D Edmund Joaquin

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.


67 posted on 03/09/2005 2:47:00 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

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.


68 posted on 03/09/2005 2:47:27 PM PST by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier then working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Darwinites probably accept Global Warming. It's where the tax money is!


69 posted on 03/09/2005 2:47:33 PM PST by metacognative (eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

huh....?


70 posted on 03/09/2005 2:48:07 PM PST by metacognative (eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: D Edmund Joaquin

"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.


71 posted on 03/09/2005 2:48:35 PM PST by Mongeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Williams
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.

Science is also not good at determining things that are not testable, such as macroevolution and abiogenesis. If it cannot be empirically tested, it just will never be known with any kind of certainty. In the development of a Steam Turbine Generator, many of the initial beliefs about the values in the Energy equation were wrong as they proved by testing the theory, which cannot be done with either abiogenesis or macroevolution or the the big bang theory either.

Even radiometric dating has to make assumptions about the composition of the material when it was "Created" or "Formed" or when its timeclock was "Reset" to zero, assuming that the electron counter is telling them what they think it is telling them.

Bottom line, applying the scientific method to how we got here, however long ago that was, is a waste of time and money. And although many "scientists" say you have to believe in macroevolution to make advances in microbiology, we all know that is bunk.

It is quite the industry, with one group saying that the Yucatan Meteorite wiped out the dinosaurs and another saying the proliferation of mammals did it. Personally, I am all for the increased volcanic activity theory killing the dinosaurs and causing an ice age at the same time, but that is just me.
72 posted on 03/09/2005 2:48:44 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: metacognative

bump to the top(bttt)


73 posted on 03/09/2005 2:49:13 PM PST by D Edmund Joaquin (Mayor of Jesusland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

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.


74 posted on 03/09/2005 2:49:20 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; AndrewC; jennyp; lockeliberty; RadioAstronomer; LiteKeeper; Fester Chugabrew; ...

Ping!


75 posted on 03/09/2005 2:49:23 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Then answer the question dummie.


76 posted on 03/09/2005 2:49:59 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mongeaux

well, you are a double -minded man and a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways


77 posted on 03/09/2005 2:50:38 PM PST by D Edmund Joaquin (Mayor of Jesusland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mongeaux

Nicole is nice.


78 posted on 03/09/2005 2:50:48 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
"huh....?"

"bttt" means "bump to the top". I'm just bumping your thread to the top of the list. :)

79 posted on 03/09/2005 2:51:01 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Macroevolution is the last of the great Mystery Religions of the 19th century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
"huh....?"

"bttt" means "bump to the top". I'm just bumping your thread to the top of the list. :)

80 posted on 03/09/2005 2:51:07 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Macroevolution is the last of the great Mystery Religions of the 19th century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 621-634 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson