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.

[Mulch]

The debate on Evolution vs. ID is political since, for the most part, Evolution underpins the liberal-relativist philosophy, while ID/Creationism for the most part underpins conservative thought.

Even though there are some fiscal conservatives that believe in evolution most social conservatives start with a belief in a creator who imposes a moral code on man.

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment."

[Paleo Conservative]

Please show me Pi as a complete number.

Did you see the article about the Japanese man who recited Pi to over 80,000 decimal places? Of course that is an infinitesimal portion of Pi.

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."

The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000,

but instead:

1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."

[GarySpFc]

who's got the links that show the Discovery Institute is funded by the Moonies?

The key word in this question is "funded." Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, but neither he nor the Moonies fund it.

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

According to Hoyle:

"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

[LeftCoastNeoCon]

In other words, DONH, this is NOT salt over the shoulder we are talking about here. This is straight physics from the best minds out there.

[Boiler Plate]

Well at least you got the NYT on your side.

[Mulch]

Can you explain for a dummy like me the exact steps that occurred as man evolved from a single cell animal?

[Radix]

"Of course that is an infinitesimal portion of Pi."

I missed that one. 

Perhaps I was too busy reading up on the Human Genome Project.

Some big numbers live there as well.

[b_sharp]

"A creationist saying that evolutionists have no interest in facts is like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing his jury of cannibalism."

Oh man! I was just about to dig into my nightly atheist meal of baby animals when I read that. Now my stomach will be upset for hours.

[Paleo Conservative]

while ID/Creationism for the most part underpins conservative thought.

I don't think so. It is pretty easy to use evolutionary thought to under ping conservative thoght.

[VadeRetro]

Does it depend on the meaning of the word "exact?"

Single-cell. Colonial. True multicellular. Bilateran. Chordate. Vertebrate (fish). Amphibian. Reptile. Primitive early mammal. Primate. Monkey. Ape. Various intermediate hominids. Man.

I oversimplify, of course. It's really a smooth transition all the way.

[b_sharp]

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

Hey you! Down there in the front, sit the heck down; you're blocking the view of the train crash.

[Paleo Conservative]

I missed that one.

Man breaks 'pi' memory record

[donh]

There is a reason so many very intelligent people don't believe in evolution.

Sure there is. It is that it takes man-years of intellectual self-discipline to come even half-way up to speed in a natural science. You can be as intelligent as you please, but if you don't understand the nature of the evidence, you are hardly in a position to assess it responsibly. That does not keep many people who are otherwise intelligent from trying, due, I guess, to some form of natural contempt for the opinions of a vast body of professionals, akin to paranoia.

It's that the evidence is so weak. Period.

You have a bad case of wish-ful-thinking-itis. Most scientists, including most physicists, would tell you that the case for Darwinian evolution is grounded on better evidence than any other theory in natural science. What non-scientists think about this is about as important as a fart in a hurricane.

You and VadeRetro and others like to flatter yourselves and think of those who disagree with you as idiots.

Idiocy doesn't really cover it, that's far too generous a characterization: it requires that special blend of contempt for the hard work of generations of honest, self-disciplined, self-critical professionals, and the painfully obvious intellectual dishonesty, incompetence and laziness that characterized all zealous science cranks throughout history.

You pretty much put yourself in that camp when you attack someone for having to gall to expect you to follow a link to the evidence you've demanded, and show some sign of understanding the nature of of what you wish to criticize.

[PatrickHenry]

It is pretty easy to use evolutionary thought to under ping conservative thoght.

Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism. ICR, the grandaddy of all creationist websites, links Darwin to good ol' capitalism. (That doesn't stop creationists from making wild claims about Marxism, nazi-ism, and everything else that they don't like.)

[donh]

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

Or Einsteinian dogma, or plate tectonics dogma.

[PatrickHenry]

Or a high school diploma.

[Radix]

LoL...


Love ya, and your profile.....

I am still chuckling....even as I head to the slumber place...

Thanks....