Posted on 03/24/2009 6:27:46 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn't further scientific progress.
Experimental biology has dramatically increased our understanding of the intricate workings within living organisms that account for their survival, showing how they continue to function despite the myriad assaults on them from their environments. These advances in knowledge are attributable to the development of new methodologies and instruments, unimaginable in the preceding centuries, applied to the investigation of living organisms. Crucial to all fruitful experiments in biology is their design, for which Darwin's and Wallace's principles apparently provide no guidance.
In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russel Wallace's evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
ping
Liberals preach DARWIN like a GOSPEL,
Then Institute Social Policies to THWART DARWIN at every MOVE!!
Arguing apples by considering oranges.
“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.”
Dr. W.R. Thompson
Entomologist
Arguing apples by considering oranges.
Good summary of what the article claims Darwin advocates often do.
“the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin’s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories”
My husband went on mission with an expert in the field of antibiotic resistance (edits a peer reviewed journal). Natural selection is what they measure in that field to estimate the useful lifespan of any class of drugs.
“Faith is greatest when its arguments are least susceptible to reason.”
Francis Bacon,
limey fartknocker
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”
Dr. Newton Tahmisian
You really need to pass this nugget of creationist wisdom on to the scientists who published the 238,000+ articles dealing with various aspects of evolution that are available in just this one NCBI archive.
There can be an infinite amount of speculation and just-so stories about evolution without them being the least bit helpful or relevant. By chance we would expect at least a few to somehow advance science just by accident. But science advances by studying and observing patterns of natural order in the here-and-now, not by ignoring those natural laws in speculating that nature can somehow achieve marvels of technological integration and development without intelligent guidance.
Indeed, the increasing reliance on studying biological technology to apply in our own technological development underscores just how advanced the designer of nature was. There are endless articles now that report on how the technology found in cells and living tissues is being adapted and applied for our use. That is real, useful, science.
In this case, the Discovery Institute had to resort to mis-representing Philip Skell, the article author, as a biochemist.
A rather long-winded way of saying that you have no intention of reading any of the articles, don’t you think?
Here's some more:
“Them evolutionists is vegetarian liberals.” - Leon, Backyard Barbecue, July 15, 1978."Evoluton is a LIE and I can out thimk those GODLES ATHIESTS with my head tied." - Phil, Internet, May 4, 2002.
"Showme a haf dog haf cat and I'll believe that evolutions crap." - Bob, Drunk, August to November, 1986.
"If people came from monkeys, why are there still cows?" - Tiffany, Biology 101, February 9, 1993.
Of course the Discovery Institute has well founded fears that the young earth creationists will blow their cover. After all, there is not a lot of science in simply using a typewriter to change the word creationism to intelligent design, as they did in the Panda book.
I read the evolutionary literature regularly, certainly more so than all or virtually all evolutionists read dissenting literature. Think about it. Like most creationists I grew up in the government indoctrination camps, solely taught Darwinism in all academic and official media. It was only when I broke from the cult of Darwinism and made the effort on my own to read 'unapproved' material that I even became aware of alternative views. And because I still read mainstream science and media publications, I unavoidably still see the Darwinian viewpoint and apologetics for it.
As a rule, the dissenters are going to be much more familiar with the orthodoxy (in this case Darwinism) than vice versa.
I agree. Indeed, it still startles me how naive they were in past eras. I read a little while back that they thought, for example, that the Turing test would be easy to pass because only "50 to 100" rules would be needed to mimic human intelligence. Ask even the most optimistic AI researcher now how reasonable such an assessment turned out to be. They assumed, consistent with their worldview, that intelligence must be a simple affair to have evolved by chance mutations, and are unable to cope in the modern era of microbiology and complex systems biology.
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.