Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There are valid criticisms of evolution
Wichita Eagle ^ | 3/9/2005 | David berlinski

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwinism; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 621-634 next last
To: Conspiracy Guy

Great comeback, I am glad you were able to defeat my argument with clear and lucid logic. In fact, I am sure that was the best case you could make. Way to go!


281 posted on 03/09/2005 7:30:05 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear
No. Some of the slime molds in particular demonstrate an ability to live as individual unicellulars for arbitrarily long times. Slime molds. My point is that there's practically every degree of multicellularity out there now. So where am I supposed to imagine the hurdle?

I really don't like arguments of the "Nobody can make me understand how this happens" form. You just don't prove anything this way.

282 posted on 03/09/2005 7:30:27 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The geologic column is far more majestic than the young earth types can ever imagine.

I don't think "majestic" is inconceivable to young earth types, nor do I think anyone can fully appreciate the sheer immensity and history of the marble that resides beneath our feet. It gives me great pleasure to know you've had the opportunity to explore the geologic column in a manner and degree I will never experience. I hope you have not only gained satisfaction from the same, but also hearty sustenance. Way to go.

283 posted on 03/09/2005 7:31:29 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Mongeaux

"yeah so some supernatural agent (a big guy in the sky, presumably) waved a magic wand and made 2 people. He then put em on a planet with he also created, but with rocks that were already a billion years old.

Good alternative theory!"

Did I say that?

I think you have smoked too much lately.


284 posted on 03/09/2005 7:32:48 PM PST by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mongeaux
Of course I live in a trailer.

Rule number one for trailer living: don't try to start a basement business. Trailers don't have basements.

285 posted on 03/09/2005 7:33:12 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: bondserv; Alamo-Girl; marron; PatrickHenry

Wow. Berlinski adduces quite a nifty list, bondserv. Thanks ever so much for pinging me to this!


286 posted on 03/09/2005 7:33:33 PM PST by betty boop (If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Fish Hunter

"You seem like a nice young man, just try to keep an open mind and learn not to trust everything the media feeds you. They have an agenda too. I was a diehard atheist when I was your age, but over time the Lord softened my heart and eventually I was able to open my eyes and see the Truth."

Gee - at 43 I would hope to be called "young man" more often, but the neighborhood kids call me the "Cranky Old Coot" (Little varmints!).

Honestly, what you did was throw a lot of math at me that I didn't understand and then tell me what it was supposed to mean. I'm used to that from years of listening to NPR (being told what things mean - I love to listen to what the Other Side is thinking). But when it comes to being told lots of science I don't understand I tend to go with the general consensus, which runs against your point.


287 posted on 03/09/2005 7:36:15 PM PST by Mongeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Tamberlane

You should have kept reading...

Rodriguez-Trelles, F., J. R. Weinberg, and F. J. Ayala. 1996. Presumptive rapid speciation after a founder event in a laboratory population of Nereis: Allozyme electrophoretic evidence does not support the hypothesis. Evolution 50(1): 457-461.


288 posted on 03/09/2005 7:38:57 PM PST by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Mongeaux
Thank you so much for the ping!

And who knows what time means at the early stages of creation after all matter/energy/pulse/photon/etc. was flung out at enormous speeds and distances.

Indeed. The most often overlooked point about the age of the universe is relativity and inflationary theory.

Some 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates is equal to roughly a week at the space/time coordinates of the inception (big bang).

289 posted on 03/09/2005 7:39:39 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Thank you so much for the beautiful image!
290 posted on 03/09/2005 7:40:25 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xzins

How does one measure evidence for design? What are the objective criteria? There aren't any. It's entirely subjective. Therefore, ID cannot be considered part of the scientific realm.


291 posted on 03/09/2005 7:41:22 PM PST by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Williams
You have based your belief in a higher being, or lack thereof, on very cheap stuff.

Thanks for your cheap opinion.

292 posted on 03/09/2005 7:42:17 PM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Gumption

anytime.


293 posted on 03/09/2005 7:45:06 PM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

That is the best you can do? Criticize my simplification without analyzing the problem or answering my question?

Well, Mr. Smarty Pants, assuming that the universe is without bounds, how did entire galaxies move an infinite distance in a finite time without violating Einstein's theory of relativity?


294 posted on 03/09/2005 7:45:15 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Fish Hunter
PS: I did NOT get this off any creation website/flyer/whatever. This is my original work.

An original "Stump the Dummies" problem! Whee! Don't quit your day job.

I don't see the Sun's output in your calculations. I don't see where you allow for a lack of rigidity in ocean surface and even continental surface. It should be very hard to accelerate the Earth by shooting photons at its water or anything so non-rigid as to absorb the impact by getting warmer. (An increase in very localized molecular motion.) I don't see where you "integrate" the increasing angle of photon impact on the daylight half as one moves away from the area of most direct illumination.

IOW, deliberately deceptive Stump-the-Dummies model. But maybe you can send it in to the ICR/AiG "proofs of a Young Earth" guys. They'll happily put it in the piggy bank with their other bad pennies.

295 posted on 03/09/2005 7:46:10 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Williams
It's not about WHY. You're just repeating your foaming-at-the-mouth assertions.

It's mutations. We track them. We count them. They're it. Deal with it.

296 posted on 03/09/2005 7:48:27 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That's because that is an unscientific statement. Science is never 100% absolutely cannot be wrong.


297 posted on 03/09/2005 7:48:42 PM PST by Sofa King (MY rights are not subject to YOUR approval.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4; Alamo-Girl

I repeat. One finds evidence for design.

One cannot measure for the real mechanism proposed by evolution....not natural selection...but natural selection that leads to new species.

There are no observable examples in the process of doing so. Therefore, one compiles evidence.

What kind of evidence would one present to support the notion of "species transitioning natural selection?" Fossils, possible transitions, examples of non-transitional natural selection, etc.


298 posted on 03/09/2005 7:48:51 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"I don't see the Sun's output in your calculations. I don't see where you allow for a lack of rigidity in ocean surface and even continental surface. It should be very hard to accelerate the Earth by shooting photons at its water or anything so non-rigid as to absorb the impact by getting warmer. (An increase in very localized molecular motion.) I don't see where you "integrate" the increasing angle of photon impact on the daylight half as one moves away from the area of most direct illumination."


YEAH! I was going to say that too but you beat me to it. Forgetting the suns output: bush league!


299 posted on 03/09/2005 7:51:11 PM PST by Mongeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
So you are saying that some amino acids came together and just waited around for another to come along until it was just right?

"Stable and semi-stable sub-assemblies" was part of it. There were other parts of it. But take your time reading the whole thing. There was a link in there to real articles about what people are really saying on the subject now. They're not about amino acids jumping together all at once to make a 200-mer self-replicant.

300 posted on 03/09/2005 7:51:13 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 621-634 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson