Posted on 05/09/2005 8:22:16 AM PDT by anguish
This week sees the 80th anniversary of the trial of John Scopes, teacher, for breaking the newly-passed Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution in the state of Tennessee. Conceived as a PR stunt to put the town of Dayton, TN on the map, it succeeded in making a laughingstock of the state, which found Scopes guilty in a trial that garnered enormous publicity. 80 years later, scientists have identified DNA as the medium in which heredity is passed on, constructed a map of the entire human genome and can routinely manipulate genetic information in the laboratory. Yet despite the advances we have made in the field, there remains a certain intransigence towards accepting as unquestioned scientific fact the theory of evolution as it pertains to the development of humankind. Although the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches defer to the scientific community on this, a highly vocal and well-funded group of fundamentalists in the United States are still bent on the suppression of evolution in schools.
Whereas the Scopes Trial of 1925 took place in a court room, this current fight takes place in front of the Kansas School Board, some of whom could not even be bothered to read through a draft of scientific standards. This board of educators, most of whom are confessed skeptics of evolution, have invited the researchers from the Intelligent Design research group Discovery Institute in Seattle to present the case that thousands of scientists worldwide have in effect been lying to themselves and the whole world by claiming that evolution — rather than God — is responsible for the vast array of biodiversity we find on the planet Earth. Scientists, led by the AAAS, have decided not to dignify these hearings by appearing before them. This event comes hot on the heels of previous efforts by the Kansas School Board to prevent the teaching of evolution, and moves by Cobb County in Georgia to label biology textbooks with a warning that evolution remains a theory. Oddly in that case they did not point out the same is true of gravity in physics books.
While the battle between fundamentalists and educators continues in the wilds of Kansas, the business of actually studying evolution marches on. A new report in Nature this week describes the rapid speciation of cichlid fish descended from the now-extinct Lake Makgadikgadi in Africa. Using mitochondrial DNA the researchers have shown a huge variety of fish species are descended from an original flock from the now defunct lake. Why have these cichlids undergone such diverse adaptations? The fish have a second set of jaws further back in their throats, that allow the main pair to develop and adapt to changing conditions, for example with big jaws from cracking snail shells, or long jaws for better predation. The female fish incubate their eggs in their mouths, and more "personal" breeding means sex selection is important, another factor in their rapid speciation.
<snip>
One can point out flaws in literally everything. Therefore your point is, and has always been obvious. And it is also irrelevant to my point.
What you have yet to acknowledge is that if evolution, that you are free to criticize until the end of your life, is false. Then there must exist something that replaces it.
Until that something exists, and has more credibility than evolution, then evolution stands.
Do you understand that point?
That is a yes or no answer.
Maybe the type certificate paperwork at the FAA?
Evidence for something clearly designed by humans in the 1960's is apples and oranges to something that occured billions of years ago. Whether there is a designer, or not.
That's not a yes or no answer.
Do you understand that either evolution is true, or something else must be?
Yes, or no.
GodwinDidit place mark
I am under no obligation to you. All you had to do was read, but you would not even entertain alternate explanations. Your mind is superglued shut.
Well, I suppose I shouldn't expect a real answer to that question. Because there isn't any serious proposal that will replace evolution. Except that "God did it", which my point is that God could have created evolution, so what's the beef?
The heavy criticisms of evolution are pretty meaningless to me. I've seen the fact of Moon landings seriously questioned. There really are people who make "flat earth" proposals. And their logic is pretty good, for the uneducated.
I've seen innumerable "answers" to who shot JFK, and criticisms of the "single shooter" theory.
Start a thread on the "best investment", and you'll get 100 "best" answers.
But like it or not, the genuine scientists who make a living studying pre-history all acknowledge evolution. There isn't a serious proposal to replace it, except "God did it", which doesn't leave anything for science to study or understand. The words "God did it" could be applied to anything, and any result, meaning that there isn't any way to tell whether it's "God", or the afternoon breeze.
This is not some kind of atheist conspiracy. And it's not because they'll be denied funding if there was a non-evolution answer to where species came from. Indeed, science would love such a real controversy, because it would give them something important to study. But evolution just isn't controversial in the scientific arena. Despite the exaggerated claims of it's death.
How do you know whether I read them or not?
They are still irrelevant to the binary point that I've posed.
If evolution isn't true, then another cause must answer to where species came from.
It's sad that you can't understand the logic that the answer to that question is either
Yes.
Or No.
You have no cause to complain when I do. You've certianly had enough chances to answer my question.
You've certainly been refused time after time. Now go pound sand. And take your threats with you. They are as fearsome as your intellect, none. I will bookmark your childish threat as an example of your discourse.
The problem I have with ID is that it is non-scientific outsiders trying to force a change in the curriculum of the biological sciences. I am an enthusiastic Catholic and went to a Catholic university as a bio major. I never even heard of these issues brought up by ID until reading about them here on FR. I don't expect anything to chance, especially since the ID controversy only exists in the US.
A single neuron cannot ever understand the workings of the body. But the millions of neurons in the brain can understand how the body works. Humanity is like that single neuron. Our knowledge will be always imperfect and less than the totality of the material universe. Therefore, we rely on faith to explain the deep mysteries of life.
And your evidence for this assertion is...??? I think anyone who's had a viral infection would argue with this statement.
once.
I suspect that's just his personal opinion. There's no way to determine whether or not nature is designed. If I am wrong, then answer this question, "is a mountain with one or more human faces appearing on it a product of design or of natural processes?"
May I take a try at this?
I understand you don't like this theory, but don't have any other ideas as to what may be the true mechanism that brought about our current reality.
And you seem unconcerned by your lack of knowing. That seems like exactly the lack of curiosity about the workings of the universe that bothers so many of us about the 'ID' proponents. That's the 'anti-science' angle, the idea that "we don't know and that's just fine".
Can I ask, do you understand why for many, the lack of an alternative theory damages the credibility of the 'ID' movement?
Like the Ds who critizice the Welfare reform plan but don't offer up any alternatives damage the credibility of their movement (or what's left of it)?
You tried but you failed. The fact that I do not give someone who badgers me for something that thing, does not mean I do not possess that something. I posted some links in 244 to the person who demanded of me that something. He chose not to read them.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
Aftermath
Recently I was asked by a reporter if I felt in retrospect that publication of the Meyer paper was "inappropriate." I responded as follows:
I'm taking inappropriate to mean one of two things, either a faux pas such as wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or something politically incorrect. The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. Now his ideas are considered politically incorrect or "anti-scientific" by some. But since I don't do politically correct science and since I think that human reason (i.e., science) is capable of at least considering questions about ultimate causes, no, I don't think his paper was inappropriate in any meaningful sense.
Continuing on, I provided my view of the range of reactions that I have observed among colleagues, which seems to me a suitable ending for this overview of the controversy:
I've received four kinds of responses regarding the Meyer article. The first is one of extreme hostility and anger that the peer-review process was not barred to a "creationist" author—no questions asked (a minority view). The second is what I'd term the herd instinct: this response arises when some key people (often members of the first group) are upset. Some people, once they begin to feel the heat from individuals with strong opinions, feign being upset too or actually become upset, for fear that they'll seem to be a "supporter" of an unpopular or despised position. Many of these individuals initially displayed no concern or qualms about the paper until some loud voices displayed their discontent. Those in the third category don't really care about the issue one way or the other, because it doesn't impact their research. In terms of population size, groups two and three are by far the largest. The fourth group consists of those who found the paper "informative," "stimulating," "thought-provoking," (real quotes I've heard from colleagues about the paper), including some who are in agreement with some of Meyer's ideas. Many members of the third and fourth groups have told me that in their opinion sooner or later the design issue will have to be debated in a reasoned manner.
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.