Atrophy.
Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.
But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.
Yep.
Refuted by Popper in person, behold:
CR Quote
Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.
Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
Really. Next they will call for the execution of doctors who perform abortions.
Please explain in 100 words or less what the big bang has to do with Darwin.
WOW-- are they really afraid of all that?
Refuted by Popper in person, behold:
OUCH ls, that's gonna leave a mark. ;-)
A certain fornicator was posting this on a related thread ...
Attention IDers! Please tell us who these designers are, where do they live and how they are organized.
Also, was the design of the human male pelvic area delegated to some intern? Surely, no "intelligent" designer could be responsible for such a mess.
Finally, placing oncogenes (cancer triggers) in all normal animal cells was a very nasty trick. What's your opinion of whichever designer was responsible?
I've read you on other forums, you make the same unsupported statements over and over on every crevo vs. evo thread that gets put up, and then take the opportunity to plug your website.
If you're going to criticise science, you need to find a reputable scientist to do it with.
and what started the inflationary expansion? It sounds like a consequence of something else to me. Very circular theory that approaches meaninglessness.
No... I got it from the comments on previous Crevo threads on FR.
Holy theory vs Holey theory
I would add science in general. What ignorance. What is worse, a self imposed ignorance.
Isn't it always?
"God made Heaven, and then, after measuring the space underneath with a ball of thread, he began to form the earth. A mole asked to help, and God gave him the thread to hold while he wove the patterns of the earth. Sometimes the mole would let out too much thread, and finally the earth grew too large for the space under heaven. The mole was so upset that he hid under the earth. God sent the bee to look for him; he wanted the mole's advice on what to do about the mistake. The bee found the mole and he just laughed at the idea of advising God. The bee, however, hid in a flower and overheard the mole mumbling to himself about what he would do if he were God. 'Iwould squeeze the earth,' he said. 'That would make mountains and valleys and make it smaller at the same time.' When the bee heard this, he went directly to God and told him. God did what the mole had said, and everything fit fine."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195102754/qid=1123436711/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/103-5859474-5135821
There are even made-up ones: http://venganza.org/
Religious people (thoughtful ones, at least) should also be afraid of this kind of muddle. If matters of faith are presented as matters of scientific fact, then if the "facts" are disproved, the faith is shattered.
That link is a classic. Thanks for posting it.
Atrophy.
Truth
Touchy. Funny humans have yet to evolve into nice people yet. Then maybe Christians would not be around any more, right?
Your a fundamental athiest?
Shatter my faith. Give me an example of this.
It's never too late to learn to spell.
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.