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.

[Radix]

I appreciate these threads, but I am mostly reluctant to post on them ordinarily.

Some of the claims in your post are dubious. That is not unusual when this subject matter comes up.

Just about any professor or teacher in the sciences would likely define "Evolution" as a unifying theory. THAT is the significant aspect of the theory.

Just as in mathematics where certain concepts are defined as "undefined," Evolution is likewise a place (or theory) from where all can move forward in study and dialogue...etc.

I find these threads to be intriguing, but the animosity which sometimes rears up is regrettable.

How many of those who object to the theory of evolution would also object to the notion that "Pi" is a valid unifying theory of geometry? Pi is essentially undefined, but its existence is a unifying force. Many other examples exist concerning the nature of the Universe.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Good god, just once, I want somebody to actually scan the links that PatrickHenry posts. Or take Bio 101, anything, to show that you've tried to inform yourself.

I was kind of hoping for some new evidence - like a DNA thread with completely unrecognisable components, but instead, same old "don't have billions of years to observe 'macroevolution'". Never mind the fact that speciation has been observed time and time again.

[VadeRetro]

And we now have mitochondrial DNA... a completely independent line of evidence that Darwin couldn't have imagined.

Yes. Nuclear DNA paints the same picture. The proteins themselves paint the same picture.

Was Darwin the luckiest charlatan in history or what?

[bondserv]

So predictable.

[Vive ut Vivas]

They tend to do that a lot, I've noticed, especially with their claims of the "religion of Darwinism". The irony is killing me. They do nothing but project.

[Radix]

"Some documented examples of evolution are the changes in the coloration of moths in London due to the soot deposited on trees beginning in the 19th century and then with the removal of soot due to environmental laws after the mid 20th century.

Why not mention the altering of mosquitos since the construction of subway tunnels during the late 19th century in London as well?

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

Everybody should read this:

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

And this:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm

Evolution is PART of God's plan (and I am not dis-inclined to believe he might have fine-tuned that as well).

From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.

[VadeRetro]

I bet none of the creationists can name any breakthroughs in biology based on "creation science", while there have been innumerable breakthroughs based on the paradigm of Darwinian evolution.

Wondering how long it will take for one of the macroevolution-versus-microevolution lawyers to attack your post.

Am I getting like the guy in the theatre who has seen the movie too many times?

[Radix]

Try getting a job as a professor in the sciences in a public college without adhering to the evolutionary dogma.

Not going to happen there, nor in a private institution.

That is just so.

[VadeRetro]

They tend to do that a lot, I've noticed, especially with their claims of the "religion of Darwinism".

There's a tacit acknowledgement in there that religion is the crappiest possible approach to science.

[Paleo Conservative]

Why not mention the altering of mosquitos since the construction of subway tunnels during the late 19th century in London as well?

I wasn't trying to make an exhaustive list. I was just doing enough to make my point so I could write a post on another thread.

[Paleo Conservative]

Am I getting like the guy in the theatre who has seen the movie too many times?

Well the creationists are very predictable.

[donh]

Pi is essentially undefined

eh?

[Vive ut Vivas]

That would be because, to be a professor in the sciences, generally you need to know something about the sciences.

[b_sharp]

"If evolution occurs why has it stopped why arent ants getting bigger or why arent more kinds of fish learning to fly come on hard hats why?"

Because you have a straw-man version of evolution firmly embedded in your skull.

[Vive ut Vivas]

If they really believe that Darwinism is a "religion" with zero evidence, I would think they'd all support it.

[donh]

From Einstein to Hoyle to Hawking, a great number of the world's top physicists beleive or are amenable to the idea that the UNIVERSE has been intelligently designed.

I'll bet thousands scientists throw salt over their shoulder for luck--do you think that makes crystal healing a science?

[Radix]

Eh?

Please define a point to me.

Please define a line.

Please define a line segment.

Please show me Pi as a complete number.

EH?

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

"For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)"

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile: "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."