Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by metacognative
Opinions
There are valid criticisms of evolution
BY DAVID BERLINSKI
"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."
Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."
Everyone else had better shut up.
In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:
• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?
These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You seem to be a man of science, and I am a trained engineer, so I hope you will not dismiss me offhand when I present to you the results of a little exercise I did today."
Sounds good to me but I think you got the wrong guy. I am an art history major and work at a boiler factory. But I got a cool project coming up involving Hobbits and chinchillas.
Ah, more Institute for Creation Research refutation of science. Try again.
I agree it is better to work by deduction where objectivity is concerned, but induction is inescapable. It has a hand in every scientific discipline whether we like it or not. One cannot divest himself of all matters attendant to prior experience, current perception, and the like, especially when placed into a universe at least a thousand times older than oneself.
O PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE do not log off. Take my word for it. It is working. But FR isn't exactly the geologic column, is it?
IF we are not alone in this universe, I suspect the other creatures out there likewise possess intelligence, and will continue to evolve this intelligence to higher and higher levels.
Because we and they do not remain inanimate rocks or unthinking cells, we are in a sense developing into far less powerful versions of that God the scientists are so afraid of. If we are not made in His image, then whose? These changes are not random any more than the ordering of the universe is random. Whether it's a big bang, or the laws of gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics, there are rules underlying all of this. Science doesn't want to think about that big picture because it has divorced itself from all notions of philosophy and religion. But for all your explanations based on randomness, the scientists always hit a brick wall in trying to answer the "big" questions, because they find themselves talking in metaphysical terms.
I don't deny evolution for a second. But isn't it interesting that in a world teeming with life, and all the scientific study, we do not see any new life springing up any where on this vast globe? All these life forms are thriving in this environment, from elephants down to viruses, yet we don't see any inanimate chemicals coming together and forming an original life form. Indeed, scientists can't do it under controlled circumstances.
It was nice talkng to you.
And for those who don't remember, this was the instance I was referring to when I said I wanted a clear example of casting pearls before swine.
A person can, as I do, believe that God is ultimately the prime mover in all things. But when I enter the realm of science, I have to put that believe aside temporarily, as there is no means to quantify matters of faith. Matters of faith are not meant to be quantified and measured - for doing so would destroy faith.
The geologic column is far more majestic than the young earth types can ever imagine. When you live in Pennsylvania and spent a couple of years in Colorado, along with taking a field geology course in the Wind River Range, the supreme expression of the Laramide Orogeny, you can visualize the sweep of events that created the geology that I see.
So you are saying that some amino acids came together and just waited around for another to come along until it was just right?
"So you are saying that some amino acids came together and just waited around for another to come along until it was just right?"
Gee you make it sound like life started in the park at San Francisco
You obviously forgot to include the effects of chaos in your calculations. You know, a little "yin" to counter your "yang" and vice versa. A little "natural selection" that needs be applied to the other particles less-embedded in the biosphere.
The universe is an immense mystery and truly understanding it is beyond the brainpower of our greatest scientists. In the end, it all leads to either meaning or meaninglessness. My best guess is there is meaning of a kind we cannot comprehend. And that, like the pre Big Bang or the unknowable inside of a black hole, begins to take on some of the attributes of an unknowable God who controls existence and nonexistence.
Shouldn't the observed instances of speciation be fairly dramatic over recorded history to account for all the complexity, even if the earth is as old as the oldest old-earth estimate?
I'm asking you, since you sound so sure, what do you think, or how do you know, one way or the other? Ie persuade me, sans insults. (Or just point me to a link that answers the question persuasively)
I'll pass on the anti-Christian bigotry, thank you.
I agree that faith is not quantifiable. However, there are different means of determining the veracity of items of faith. For example, in a murder we are asked to have jurors convict the accused only on the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt." (Doubt being the opposite of faith.) In other words, you must have an extremely strong belief in the guilt of the accused in order to convict him.
However, you cannot "view" the crime since it is a past event.
What you can do is assemble evidence that helps reassemble the events of the crime. For example, I was surprised that Scott Peterson was convicted, because they really had so little physical evidence. Apparently, what they did have removed all but the most unreasonable objections.
It was hair, phone calls, girlfriends, cement, actions, etc., that enabled the jury to reconstruct a likely scenario of what happened.
Similarly, both evolution and ID must appeal to evidence that they can assemble to support their contention. Both are striving to show that the assembled evidence best supports their case.
What is the evidence that they use is the first significant question. The second significant question is "what is the counter-evidence?"
Reasons for and reasons against.
It's how we'd convict a criminal.
Funny.. you did't cite one.
DOH!
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.