Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive

New York Times ^ | August 21, 2005 | JODI WILGOREN

[Nicholas Conradin]

By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.

After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

[PatrickHenry]

Yes, but it gets tiresome shooting at fish in a barrel.

[narby]

Their hysteria is about "FUNDING".

You really don't get how science funding is done, do you?

With creationists attacking evolution, funding for evolution research will be going up dramatically.

And like many political battles, the creationist interest groups like Discovery Institute are getting big dollars too.

Just like in the environmental battles where both sides get money from their usual suspects when things get hot, it's happening with evolution now.

It's no coincidence that the Discovery Institute has the same basic business model as the Sierra Club, Greenpeas and other enviro nut houses. It brings in the mega bucks when you attract a following of fellow nut cases that have money.

[b_sharp]

"You and your ilk are just too darn smart for me. But I'll tell you what. I live in a university town. And a friend of mine is one of the leading biological scientists in the nation (maybe, the world). He is quite well-known among those who do that sort of thing for his work in genetics, having had at least one famous break-through (maybe more, but you understand that stuff is way beyond morons like me). Oh, and did I mention he doesn't believe in evolution? Just another moron after all. BTW, what is YOUR background in natural science?"

I suggest you bone up on your 'appeal to authority' use, it needs work.

[beaver fever]

Sorry, meant circumference C

as in C = 3.14 (Pi)X D

[Nicholas Conradin]

If, just for the sake of argument, a supernatural being did create the universe and all life in it, would it be inappropriate for the created beings to worship said supernatural being

Well, yes, it would be inappropriate.

If you begin by postulating that you have knowledge of some "supernatural" entity, you allow for any means of acquiring knowledge by something beyond rational or sensory evidence. Whatever may be entailed in "worship" of such a fantasy is a relatively trivial matter.

[longshadow]

Yes, but it gets tiresome shooting at fish in a barrel.

Time to requisition a bigger gun from DarwinCentral.... I assume you have the correct forms, in octuplicate.

[js1138]

peasmarker

[js1138]

Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."

Buzzz...

Quote mine alert. This one's from Demski's blog. More to follow.

[js1138]

quote mine busted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html

[js1138]

Quote mine alert

[PatrickHenry]

quote mine busted.

Creationist dishonesty? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!!

[Timmy]

Sigh. Don't know why I bother. Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe have PhD's in moledular biology. Many other critics have similar background. Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted the fossil record didn't support Darwinism (ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?). But all these folks are stupid compared to donH, Patrick Henry, and VadeRetro, none of whom will stand up and state their qualifications to call someone else ignorant in how they evaluate the arguments for and against. It's like arguing with liberals. Ugliness, insults and name-calling is all you've got.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted the fossil record didn't support Darwinism"

That's a lie. He thought that speciation happened faster than was before thought. He is perhaps the most quote-mangled evolutionist that the creationists distort to support their religion. You need to read some SJG before you slander his name.

[Timmy]

Well, actually I'm not a liar. And you result to name-calling quite quickly with zero evidence. John Kerry supporter, I s'pose? Perhaps camping with Mother Sheehan? At least, you seem to act like those folks.

I don't use my friend's name because I don't have his permission (I haven't, and won't, ask for it for this silly little chat). It's called courtesy, something you folks on the left ought to practice.

But his name doesn't matter. There are many distinguished scientists who have stepped up and criticized Darwinism. Many of the critics (Wells, Behe, Denton) have extensive science-related acronyms following their names. However, to those like you, they are simply morons. Which is why I challenge you angry evos (and you are one) to declare your background and education. It provides perspective to how you examine the evidence.

I freely admit I'm an engineer. You may be a professor of biological science, or perhaps a scientologist. Don't you agree it's helpful? I would hate to think that you might be a truck driver calling distinguished science PhD's morons because they dare to doubt you on this subject. However, I am quite certain that would be the result, which is why you prefer to insult, rather than stepping up to the plate.

Toodles, my friend. I will await your next nasty comment. It is, after all, what you do best.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I would hate to think that you might be a truck driver calling distinguished science PhD's morons because they dare to doubt you on this subject. However, I am quite certain that would be the result, which is why you prefer to insult, rather than stepping up to the plate."

Do you think that the argument from authority will be more persuaisve than real evidence for your case?

[js1138]

Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted the fossil record didn't support Darwinism ...

non-existent quote mine alert.

Doesn't it get tiresome trying to believe that famous scientists didn't really believe what they spent their lives arguing for?

Wald, Prigogine, and Gould in one day. Amazing.

There seems to be a cottage industry devoted to misquoting scientists.

[Timmy]

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life, 1990.

Your serve, dear. I won't call YOU a liar, though. I believe you are merely brainwashed or just woefully ignorant. Your manners could use some work, however. Bad manners seems to be a characteristic of you evos.

[Timmy]

So, Carolinaguitarman. What's your background? Running the Museum of Natural Science, or goatherding? 'Course, you seem to think it doesn't matter. You're simply anointed. Step up, my man. What's your background?

[Tim Long]

(If there was a genuine finding such as that, it would falsify evolution right then and there.)

As I understand it, there have been such findings, about 28 incidents I believe.

(how evolution theory has is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times advantage over random chance.)

Doesn't macroevolution rely on random chance?

[Timmy]

Oh, Gould was a Darwinist (and a darn decent fellow for that handicap). However, he wasn't a liar. Many here should follow the man's character, and not just his beliefs. Anyway, punctuated equilibrium was, of course, his theory explaining the problem away. Evolution happened, he thought, it just wasn't captured on film. Toodles, my fact-challenged friend.