Posted on 04/05/2005 8:56:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either -- so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
Perhaps in some sense, but definitely not in the biblical sense. Here is Genesis 1. By reading it over, you'll see the progression as to how God first makes light, then heaven and earth, then the seas and land, then the plants, then the sun and moon, then the animals, and finally
God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth.None of this is consistent with God making a single cell and letting nature take its course.And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.
And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
The reason you don't have anything on hand is that it doesn't exist. "Developed" isn't the same as "came about".
I don't know what gave you the impression that I thought it was.
First of all, Darwin explictly cited creation as the origin of first life. Evolution describes what happened after that, i.e., development.
That's the theory. Do you have any evidence that evolution requires a continuous series of miracles?
I'm more concerned about it leaving smudge marks on my a$$.
Stremba appeared to be saying that the theory takes no position at all on whether divine intervention occurred during the development process. You're saying that it does take a position - namely, that it does not involve divine intervention (which is how I had always understood it). I was just looking for some confirmation.
Evolution, as proclaimed by darwin, does not require continual intervention in order to produce new species. No one can prove that devine intervention does not happen. What evolution asserts is that evolution occurs as a regular, orderly process.
Nicely put.
Evolution does not require divine intervention. It doesn't actually rule it out either. The confusion might be the methodological naturalism that is used by science. Science assumes that physical phenomena are explainable without reference to the supernatural. This assumption does not rule out divine intervention. It simply states that it is unnecessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the physical world. To make this clear, the position on divine intervention implied by evolution is exactly the same as that implied by gravity (or any other scientific theory). Gravity does not require divine intervention. However, I am sure that nobody today would argue that the existence of gravity in any way implies that God cannot exist. Similarly, evolution does not require divine intervention. However, it also does not imply the nonexistence of God or His nonintervention. There simply is no PHYSICAL evidence of such divine intervention, however, so science does not routinely consider such a possibility. The post you made to me earlier regarding the conflict between evolution and Scripture is simply irrelevant. All that shows is that evolution contradicts your personal belief and understanding of the Bible. It does not show that evolution is inconsistent with the existence of God and His involvement in the world.
Actually I think your dispute with me isn't over my view of Genesis, but over my view of the theory of evolution. Your explanation of the theory still seems counterintuitive to me.
To make this clear, the position on divine intervention implied by evolution is exactly the same as that implied by gravity (or any other scientific theory). Gravity does not require divine intervention. However, I am sure that nobody today would argue that the existence of gravity in any way implies that God cannot exist.
I never said that the theory of evolution "implies that God cannot exist." I said it conflicts with the account in Genesis.
What the theory of gravity implies is that when matter attracts matter and they move toward each other, they do so as a result of impersonal forces, not because they are commanded by God to move. And since you've stated that the theory of evolution implies the same degree of divine intervention (i.e., zero), it likewise implies that impersonal forces are responsible for the origin of species.
To put it another way, if God actually commanded two pieces of matter to move together, and created a new species out of nothing, then these things would be outside the theories of gravity and evolution. They would not be predicted by them.
The point is that we don't really know if there's a divine intervention involved with gravity. It is possible that the entire universe is designed by God and at the beginning, given a set of laws by Him that have led to the present state. Evolution is certainly consistent with this view.
Whether or not this view is consistent with the account of Genesis depends on how you interpret Genesis. If you read it literally, with no interpretation at all, then yes, Genesis and evolution probably are not compatible. However, if you make allowance for simplifications to allow people to understand the account prior to our discovery of relativity, big bang cosmology, evolution, and other modern science, then Genesis may very well be compatible, at least loosely, with the theories of modern science. Just an example, Genesis says that the first thing created was light. Big bang cosmology says that immediately following the big bang, the universe would have been so hot that radiation would have been energetic enough to form particle anti-particle pairs, and that this is where matter comes from. Thus, radiation is predominant at the first moments after the big bang, ie. light. Genesis talks about the successsion of different creatures that were created. This succession, making some simplifications, is roughly the same as the theory of evolution states.
You are right. I don't argue with you about Genesis, however. That is a matter of faith. I do argue, however, that evolution is not inconsistent with either a belief in God or belief in the Genesis account, especially if you read Genesis as a parable which simply gives us the message that God is responsible for the creation of the universe and what man's spiritual relationship with God should be.Many Christian denominations have absolutely no problem with evolution, most notably the Roman Catholic Church. It may also surprise you that most evolutionary biologists are in fact Christians, just not the ones who are most publicly vocal. My position is simply that evolution neither requires nor denies divine intervention. It says nothing either way. Similarly, gravity (and all other scientific theories) neither deny nor require divine intervention. Science simply does not help us answer questions about God.
What we do know from the theory is that there's no intelligence or free will involved in the way gravity works. Such a simple mathematical formula shows that it's a completely mechanical process. That the law of gravity may itself have been invented by some intelligent mind doesn't change this.
Whether or not this view is consistent with the account of Genesis depends on how you interpret Genesis. If you read it literally, with no interpretation at all, then yes, Genesis and evolution probably are not compatible. However, if you make allowance for simplifications to allow people to understand the account prior to our discovery of relativity, big bang cosmology, evolution, and other modern science, then Genesis may very well be compatible, at least loosely, with the theories of modern science.
Like I said earlier (either to you or to someone else), you can always get around what someone or some text is saying by saying it should be read symbolically rather than according to the ordinary meanings of words. The only problem with that is that it makes it mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, and rather defeats the purpose of writing it down. If the theory of evolution doesn't conflict with Genesis, then really nothing can conflict with it, because it can then be read to mean just about anything and everything. Or it means that the theory of evolution is virtually unfalsifiable, because it can account beforehand for any changes in species that might have happened.
"I am a person who believes in evolution and I subscribe to Scientific American, but still I found this editorial smarmy, condescending and arrogant.
This is their lame-ass attempt at clever way of diffusing the very accurate charge that their magazine has grown unbearably political over the last few years. (Did you miss their tribute to congress's non-partisan champion of science - Henry Waxman a few months ago? Or their "strictly science" article that dismissed missle defense as an utterly unworkable system designed only to enrich the supporters of the Republican corruption machine.)
Instead of responding with this insulting misdirection, they should answer the question many of their readers want to know - Do they intend to be a science publication or a political publication?
Actually, in their snitty way, I guess they did answer it. I'll not be renewing my subscription."
I was going to start a new thread about Scientific American and their bias in their current issue, but found this old thread.
"Planet earth at a crossroads" is the Sept issue.
They have a whole issue chock of full of faves like the ol' reliable Amory Lovins touting the clean, green wave of the future, fatuous concerns over this or that problem with the modern world, and advocating their own favorite solutions.
Liberal social engineering at its best/worst, a mix of common sense pablum down to advocates' blind-sighted monomania (Amory Lovins is 80% the latter in my book).
They preface it with the usual snitty editorial saying that their critics who say they are engaging in too much advocacy can go stuff it.
The lowlight for me was an issue last year. On the cover, they had a headline along the lines of "The Greatest Unanswered Questions in Physics - An Interview with [some hump whose name I don't remember.]"
So I'm thinking that it is actually going to be the type of article that got me to subscribe in the first place. I got as far as the introduction ("The Bush Administration is screwing up scientific dialog") and the pull quote was about the need to teach only evolution in school science classes.
You know, stuff about the greatest unanswered questions in physics.
I actually enjoyed this up until the missle-defense and anti-pollution stuff. I thought it was a little odd that they were writing humor, but I thought, hey Mudblood, what's wrong with a laugh now and again? Then I read the Huffington-esque slant and I was like, "Wow, I do believe they suck..."
I used to subscribe but got sidetracked and haven't re-subscribed. I've always considered renewing, but was lazy and cheap :) Now I have a better reason not to. Besides, they don't have enough good articles on space exploration. Its always biology.
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.