Posted on 09/05/2011 5:17:21 PM PDT by SJackson
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
Paul Krugman thinks that Republicans are dumb, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. In the not-too-distant future he sees a Republican half-wit delivering his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the convention in grunts, beating his chest, and bopping his wife over the head with the a club as he drags her on to the stage by her hair.
Writing in The New York Times, Krugman says, “One of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge.
And, in a time of severe challenges – environmental, economic, and more – that’s a terrifying prospect.”
Terrifying indeed. What’s more frightening then the prospect of a bunch of underdeveloped orangutans with their finger on the nuclear button? But saying that Republicans are anti-science is about as accurate as saying that democrats are anti-religion, and one wonders which is more outrageous: the prospect of a primitive party of Republicans getting control of government, or a Nobel-prize winning columnist in one of the world’s most authoritative newspapers writing broad generalities about how they’re unlettered buffoons who hate learning and science.
What seems even more outrageous is the fact that Krugman’s ire was piqued by Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s comment that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990, I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world’s greatest evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex – then widely regarded as the leading evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Dawkins at Oxford that he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online; in that video, it can be seen that Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side, but actually loses the debate in a student vote. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.
What I learned from these debates, as well as from reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue.
This does not mean that evolution is not true or that the theory is without merit or evidence. It does, however, corroborate what Perry said. Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.
Indeed, Dawkins and the late and celebrated Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fiercely debated basic assumptions about evolution, with Gould arguing that the large gaps in the fossil record make a mockery of a theory of gradual evolution, which is why Gould advocated “punctuated equilibrium” – a variation on Darwinism in which evolution takes place in dramatic periods of change followed by long eons of stasis. Gould maintained this position precisely because, as Perry said, the theory of evolution has “some gaps in it” – in the case of the fossil record, quite literally.
No scientist has ever witnessed evolution directly; science itself says this is impossible given the vast amount of time needed for species to evolve.
Rather, evidence for evolution is found primarily in the fossil record, and evidence for natural selection stems from some famous contemporary observations. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which can produce light or dark offspring, were light in coloration.
However, with the rise in pollution during the Industrial Revolution, the lichens and trees against which the light-colored moths habitually hid from predators were darkened with soot, making the light-colored moths conspicuous to predatory birds and allowing the dark moths to survive.
A similar proof brought for natural selection is the Galapagos Finch, which Darwin theorized was originally a single species but over time changed very slowly in response to the demands of the environment.
For example, the large ground-finch had a big, powerful beak that seemed well-suited to cracking open seeds, while the vampire finch had a long, pointed beak, which allowed it to puncture the flesh of other birds and drink their blood. In each case, Darwin reasoned, beak shape had evolved over time to provide an adaptive advantage.
THE PROBLEM with both these observations is that they are manifestations of horizontal, rather than vertical, evolution, as they document how members of a species may change within the range of characteristics that they already possess. No new traits are generated. Vertical evolution, whereby natural selection can supposedly create entirely new structures, has yet to be directly observed and is thus a theory.
Other challenges remain regarding evolutionary theory, most notably the anthropic principle, which maintains that if the physical laws and constants governing our universe were even slightly different, we would not be here to notice it because the emergence of life could not have occurred.
The English cosmologist Sir Martin Rees argues in his book Just Six Numbers that the values of six numbers determine to a great degree many of the large- and small-scale properties of our universe, and if any of these were changed, even slightly, the universe might not exist at all.
The second number, epsilon, which is roughly .007, describes, roughly speaking, how durable matter is, because it tells us how much energy is required to separate an atom into its constituent particles. If epsilon were .006 – a difference of about 14% – the universe would consist entirely of hydrogen. No other elements would form, because the process of nuclear fusion could not occur. There would be no planets, very little light, no nebulae, no comets and certainly no life.
The value of epsilon is one of the most profound mysteries of the universe.
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his typically flamboyant way, said of it: “It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say ‘the hand of God wrote that number...’” Many leading scientists, like Francis Collins – described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time” – therefore believe that while evolution may indeed be an accurate theory regarding the rise of life, it still requires the guiding hand of a higher power in order to operate.
Indeed, Dawkins himself said in a famous interview with Ben Stein that the intelligent life in our universe may have come from “a higher intelligence” consisting of space aliens that seeded our planet with intelligent life.
IN THE final analysis, however, the biblical account of creation easily accommodates an evolutionary ascent, seeing as the narrative expressly relates that God created the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and finally human life forms in ascending order.
It would be wise of Krugman to remember that the very essence of science is to question, and that stifling doubt is a sin of which religion has been quite guilty in the past – one science should refrain from repeating in the present.
No, science is all about questioning.
Does worshiping the Oracle Gore make you Anti-Science?
no, just ask hugh ross.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
It is reasonable to assume that in addition to Iran, Israel's response would target perceived conventional threats in the region, given Israel's post strike inability to confront a conventional attack
Until it runs into something like globull warming. Then, at best, it separates into blocs of differing faiths.
It depends what you mean by “evolution”. On the one hand, it’s a well-established scientific theory. One the other, it is seen as an attempt to eliminate God from the question of how did life in the world come to be what it is now.
No, science is all about questioning.You are right.
Science is about making testable, refutable hypotheses. The hypotheses don’t have to explain everything (e.g. “how did life begin?”) but if they must be consistent with all known facts in order to be accepted. Any and every hypothesis is just one conflicting discovery away from modification or the trash. Newtonian physics sure seemed pretty good, but the orbit of Mercury just couldn’t be reconciled with it. It took general relativity to get that correct.
There is evidence for evolution, such as weeds acquiring the characteristics of crops they grow among, so as to avoid being picked, or moths getting darker when pollution was worse, to avoid being eaten by birds, but it’s quite hard to come up with testable hypotheses regarding microscopic, highly improbable chemical reactions in the oceans billions of years ago. So some of those questions verge on the unscientific.
Look at the fish that can turn colors to match the background to be able to become stealth to its predators. THAT'S a miracle!
It depends what you mean by “evolution”. On the one hand, it’s a well-established scientific theory. One the other, it is seen as an attempt to eliminate God from the question of how did life in the world come to be what it is now.
Now, was this mechanism entirely responsible for the generation of human beings? That is certainly not a proven theory, and anyone who cares about science will respect those who question the hypothesis.
‘Expelled’ is a great documentary-very ‘accessible’.
‘Signature in the Cell’ by Stephen J. Meyer is fantastic.
Also, look for the movie, ‘Metamorphosis’, Plummer Auditorium, Fullerton, CA. September 17th.
Either way, if we don’t agree on the definition of the term, then the argument is meaningless.
A simple challenge: Please read the following description of the world’s creation.
————
Everything was created. Suddenly and with great violence, but with uncalculable forces in the darkness. From this energy, light condensed a short while later. Then matter was created as the light energy further cooled. A period of time passed.
The earth and solar system was formed from the galactic dust and interstellar plasmas, gathering together and cooling into the individual spheres (the planets and their atmospheres) and the sun we see rotating around our sky today. Another period of time passed.
Down here on the earth itself, one continent was formed surrounded by one single massive sea, later breaking up and re-connecting by continental drift into the continents and seven seas everybody is familiar with today. Once dry, cool (non-volcanic) land appeared, the first plants began growing, changing the original inhospitable and deadly atmosphere of toxic and light-absorbing gasses into the clear and viable combination of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and carbon dioxide we need (the balance of gasses that all life needs on earth!) to survive today. These first plants kept growing for another while longer.
Well, the atmosphere was finally clear enough for visible light to be transmitted through the previously dark atmosphere, and suddenly the available energy on the surface grew large enough to support more life, higher forms of life above simple plants.
So animal life grew – first in the warm tropic seas as fish and amphibians, then on land with dinosaurs (who evolved into birds) and then modern large mammals. Man finally straggled onto the scene, very late behind everything else.
Now, having read that summary (theory) of how the earth was formed, then how life on earth was formed, please tell me where it came from: an obscure word-of-mouth tradition starting some 5000-odd years ago by itinerant shepherds who didn’t even have a “zero” to count upon, much less decimal points to keep track of time; or the latest 20th century particle physics textbooks, archeology, geology and oceanographic references, biology and taxology theories, and astronomical discoveries.
And, if you cannot tell the difference, then how “did” that bunch of wandering professors (er, ignorant shepherds) get all of it so right?
ML/NJ
That’s a lovely piece of writing, but I’m not sure what it has to do with my comments.
Ann Coulter points out that indeed there are some "gaps" in the theory.
And yet two jundred some years into the industrial revolution, the peppered moth has yet to evolve into a different species.
Let’s look at it this way: no person in their right mind could credibly argue that 2+2 always equals 4; that light travels 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum; that a feather and a 100-pound weight will fall at the same rate of speed through a vacuum; and so forth. There is no controversy regarding these because they have been and can be proved time and time again. That is true science.
Not so with evolution. It is a theory (at least at the macro level) fraught with controversy, illogic, unproveable suppositions, and essentially no credible explanation for the current state of life on earth.
So who cares what Paul Krugman - for whom I have no respect when it comes to economics - and the others who believe in the religion of evolution - thinks? I certainly do not. Having a Ph.D. in any discipline only shows you have studied something in detail as presented by your professors. It says nothing about how the tenets of that discipline are applied. And that is why people like Krugman have no credibility with me.
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.