Truth is a monkey on pols' backs (Richard Cohen: "Half Of America Rejects Theory Of Evolution."

New York Daily News ^ | April 12, 2005 | Richard Cohen

[Fester Chugabrew]

From a Christian perspective, there is no greater scholar than Christ.

Interesting. I nowhere find Christ presenting Himself as a "scholar." If anything, He let the "scholars" of His day know in no uncertain terms how they err when it comes to the Scriptures and the power of God.

[E-Mat]

I read some more of your post and I think now that evolution must be true after all.

Just kidding! The whale evolution was an interesting story, though. But again the support seemed circular to me. "This one and that one are similar and so are their DNA, and we found some fossils that looked a little like both." That's great, but if I weren't looking for some way to prove common descent or at least operating under that assumption, then I might still come to the simpler conclusion that if DNA is the building block for life, and if a good design can simply be modified and reapplied to each variation to fill every niche of creation, then why not create all living things that way. After all, when we find a good principle, of course we're going to reuse it.

And I think this reuse and variation principle bears itself out even in a literal interpretation of Genesis. If God would use a rib from man to help make a woman while man was sleeping, then it seems to be in character for the same God to create one creature after another using variations of the same DNA code.

I welcome evidence like what Ichneumon presented, but if most of the arguments are based on the same circular similar=ancestry-in-common argument, then I can just as easily see similar=designer-in-common.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It should also be noted that intelligent design theory only predicts original functionality, and allows for loss of function, where something was originally designed functional, but perhaps function was lost due to various environmental factors.

So how does ID address the evidence of species development over time? Why doesn't the designer just create species at the same time instead of leaking them out across history?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You're the best!

Nice post.

[E-Mat]

"...how does ID address the evidence of species development over time? Why doesn't the designer just create species at the same time instead of leaking them out across history?"

Actually, I'm not well versed on ID. And if by "species development" you mean the formation of completely new genetically incompatible species, I'm not convinced that even happens.

On the other hand, I do see evidence for an incredible amount of variation within a species--so much so, that biologists (and especially environmentalists) get a little too happy inventing new species every time they go somewhere and find an organism that looks a little different from anything yet classified.

Examples: Peppers. Before the theory of evolution, Linnaeus classified two species. Since then they've discovered 25 here and 40 there. Finally some botanists looked them all over carefully and confirmed that Linnaeus pretty much had it right the first time. There are only two or perhaps at the most four genetically distinct species.
Colubrid snakes, dozens of classified species. Then some breeders are discovering that under the right conditions many of the Colubrids are cross-fertile. The reason many of them don't breed may simply have to do with with geographic separation, and sometimes behavioral or perhaps pheromone differences. But in fact many of them are technically still the same species.
Dogs. Can you imagine how all the breeds of dogs would have been classified if no one had ever seen a live one and merely discovered them all from fossils? What a freaking evolutionary mess paleontologists would have made of that. And yet the variation found in dogs (chihuahuas, great danes, grey hounds, etc.) are not due to mutations (although I think there are a couple breeds that may have proven mutations). And yet mere people working with a limited population over a relatively short amount of time helped produce all this variation of behavior and morphology within a single species without the help of mutations and without producing a single new species--though an ignorant evolutionist suddenly running across this situation would be apt to cite a miniature Doberman and a Saint Bernard as proof of distinct species and dig up a few bones at the pound for evidence of missing links.

"Why doesn't the designer just create species at the same time instead of leaking them out across history?"
We may not agree how, but we all know the earth's climate has changed over time, and obviously local climates change, and, of course, they change between locations. How better to prepare your creation for all these possible changes than by instilling the ability to express a wide range of traits in just a few generations, rather than hoping things don't change too quickly so that your creatures will have those several million years that just might spontaneously generate those half dozen magical mutations they need just to get past the next mountain range or to survive the next El Niño.

[FastCoyote]

Thanks, I love this stuff.

[E-Mat]

It's ironic that evolutionists cite flat-worlders and sun-centrists as typical detractors of evolution theory.

The Aristotelians had these wonderfully elaborate and ever changing models to show how their observations of planetary motion could fit in a system where the sun is at the center of the universe, and their hero Aristotle could be proven essentially correct. The sophisticated models were so painstakingly designed, and sometimes quite wonderful and interesting. And many rich and powerful people would spend an inordinate amount of time and money promoting these models so that everyone would know the truth and fall in line thanks to the uniform texts and teachers found at every local university.

And then a gentleman came along, literally arguing from the basis of Intelligent Design. And that man found a gentle Christian way to say, "What in the hell were you people thinking? God doesn't slap half-@ssed BS together like that! Look, it's really much simpler and intelligent than you think..."

Well, it took a very long time to convince everybody that Aristotle was wrong, but not as long as it took for the very same type of humanists to convince people that it was the religious nuts who were holding them back as far as the belief that the world is flat. Quite a remarkable feat, really, considering that even most Christian don't know that people who believed as they do, completely revolutionized and defined the laws of planetary motion--because of what they believed about God--and also that it was completely obvious even Jesus and his apostles knew the earth is round.

So now, the Darwinians have these wonderfully elaborate and ever changing models to show how their observations of biological diversity fit into a system where chaos and harsh environments can spontaneously generate mindbogglingly complex organisms, and their hero Darwin can be proved essentially correct. The sophisticated models are so painstakingly designed, and sometimes quite wonderful and interesting. And many rich and powerful people spend an inordinate amount of time and money promoting these models so that everyone will know the truth and fall in line thanks to the uniform texts and teachers found at every local university, and now also thanks to the dazzlingly beautiful PBS specials.

Of course, this time the models seem so unbelievably ridiculous, even to the true-believers, that everyone knows it couldn't possibly happen all by itself even in a million years. And that's why they had to switch to the billion year time-line. (At least until the new term "not in a billion years" became popular.)

But, drat, those pesky Intelligent Design people are still hanging around and still trying to fend off the neo-dark-age of humanism, like a bunch of God-loving Copernicus', Keplers, Newtons, and Galileos. Only the constant, incessant oppression of their beliefs and ideas can keep the simplicity of Intelligent Design out of the mainstream this time. Or can it?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Actually, I'm not well versed on ID. And if by "species development" you mean the formation of completely new genetically incompatible species, I'm not convinced that even happens.

So why aren't there fossils of 500 million year old humans if we've always been here?

[js1138]

It's no accident that most major leaps of science have been made by scientists who were somewhat on the fringes of the science community.

"Most"? Please document *this* amazing claim too while you're at it.

I think there could be some confusion about the difference between little known and fringe.

Mendel was unknown for decades after he published. Einstein was unknown before 1905. And Darwin was an amateur.

All of these were completely mainstream in their methodology. I can't really think of any great science coming from the fringe. Ideas like the big bang were under consideration before being demonstrated. I took geology before plate tectonics, and I can say for certain that most geologists at the time believed continents had separated, but didn't know the mechanism.

[E-Mat]

"...why aren't there fossils of 500 million year old humans if we've always been here?"

I've always wanted to see the raw data on that. Perhaps Ichneumon has another lengthy post on that, which not only "proves" there are 500 million old fossils, but fairly shows the margin of error on the fossils they've found.

[cookcounty]

"Yet, 19 states are considering proposals that would require schools to question evolution, "

Horrors!!! Can Science survive? Questions!! From high schoolers!! How will Science survive this dastardly onslaught?!!!

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Note: this topic is from April 12, 2005. Thanks presidio9. This essay or op/ed is by Richard Cohen. Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·