Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."
[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
"Well, give us a brief tutorial."
Not my job. Read something.
Why can't an ape and human reproduce naturally? Not that anyone would want to, but scientifically, is it possible?
Sure, and humans can climb trees. Not as well as chimps and gorillas, true, but well enough.
However, living on the savannah, you would spend most of your time on the ground, so upright posture was an advantage.
Genetically, they're too far apart to breed naturally. There's been too much evolutionary drift between humans and chimps for breeding to occur naturally. Some other related species are close enough to inter-breed, such as lions and tigers and horses and donkeys. They haven't drifted far enough apart yet for breeding to be impossible.
"Why would some monkeys evolve into humans and not others? What caused the jump?"
Do, please, read an introductory textbook on the theory of evolution. When you're done with that, we can discuss the theory. Until then, it is impossible, since you appear to know nothing of what the theory says.
Thank you for your attention.
I know I didn't descend from apes and really, that's all that matters.
So we're genetically close because we are descended from them, but genetically too far apart to reproduce. Okay.
Well, it you scan the horizon, you will see TREES!!!
See there's the issue...ID BEGINS with the assumption of "design". The TOE and most of science begin with observable evidence and data, and go where it leads. ID/creationism begins with the conclusion and seeks data to support it (allegedly...in reality it only seeks to poke holes in the TOE).
Thus, your contention that the two "look at the same data and come to different conclusions" is misleading.
Beginning with the desired conclusion and trying then to support it is not the scientific method.
Take the Irish, for example...
Few and far in between, is the point. What do you do when, as is quite likely, you need to have a look around but there's no tree handy? You stand up.
And other than religious faith, what evidence is there to support the Biblical explaination for racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity?
"Can an ape and human reproduce?"
Humans are primates, like apes. A human and a chimp or a gorilla cannot mate and reproduce. They are different species. All three, however, are primates. All three are mammals. All three are vertebrates.
Again, read something. You're sounding really foolish, I'm afraid.
ID assumes the existence of an intelligent designer and then searches for evidence to justify the conclusion it had always planned to draw.
Maybe so. Evolutionists assume the absence of an intelligent designer and then ignore any evidence which contradicts their desired conclusion.
You guy's are really pathetic....
I leave off the sarcasm tag and you didn't "get it"...
Guess I need to leave you alone for a while longer and let you evolve some more.....you're obviously still to simian...
NeverGore :^)
Oops! Sarcasm Tag now off...
I knew the answer - just wanted you to admit how ridiculous the theories of evolution are.
No one is saying that you did. What the TOE says is that both you and other apes descended from some common ancestor.
And as has been pointed out, humans ARE apes, just a different species of ape.
Why does the possibility frighten you so much? The common ancestor is far enough back that it really doesn't matter to what YOU personally are.
I guess there will be lots of FReepers who switch parties now. Kerry wasn't against evolution but didn't understand the question.
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.