We were all created. Many devolve.
Creationism is a theory put forth to undermine Conservatism and the Conservative movement.
Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
This is a meaningless criticism. Berlinski doesn't even say if he is talking about lenght, time, or mass. In 1983 one meter in length is defined as the distance light will travel in vacuum during 1/299,792,458 second. In 1963, one second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 vibrational periods of one atom of 133 Cesium. This frequency can be measured to an accuracy of about 4 parts in 10^13. However, our standard of measurement of mass leaves much to be desired. Our standard of mass dates to 1901, when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France defined the kilogram as the mass of a particular cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy. Though standards of lenght and time can be measured to 1 part in 10^12 our standard of mass can only be reproduced to a precision of 1 part in 10^9. Science would like to have an atomic standard for mass, as all atoms of the same type are essentially identical, but no one has come up with a way to count individual atoms with the required accuracy.
The measurement of collisions of atoms and subatomic particles involve measurements of time and energy, both of which we can get high levels of precision. We can also very accurately describe the lenght and composition of the DNA molecule, we can deduce is mass, its molecular weight. However, this is not what evolutionary biologists measure. Saying that evolutionary theory makes no qualitative predictions is dead wrong. Evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of occurance of genes over time in populations of organisms. Individuals within a population have different genes, and some variations are passed to their offspring. Using modern DNA sequencing technology, changes in individual organisms can be measured down to the base pair. Sequences of base pairs of an organism, called the genome, can be assembled and compared with that of other organisms using the computer. The genomes of simple, short lived organisms (generally bacteria) can be sequenced and compared with that of their ancestors in near real time.
Therefore, anyone who claims evolutionary is not a quantitative science is flat wrong.
Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
This is another meaningless criticism. This criticism is a complete straw man. I believe Mr. Berlinski is confusing evolution with big bang theory. The modern synthesis theory of evolution (comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and various advances in molecular biology that have come since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule since the 1950s) has never purported to explain the origin of life. It only attempts to descibed the change in organisms over time.
A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
This is akin to saying evolution is wrong because we haven't found a fossil of every organism that has ever existed. It is a good thing forensic detectives do not operate under this standard or no murderer would ever be convicted.
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.
This is another meaningless criticism without detailing how these computer models were written.
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.
That we consider some varieties of drug-resistant bacteria to be distinct species from their non-resistant cousins should not be forgotten.
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.
Hardly. I'm not even a biologist and I am able to determine that these conjectures have little relevance. The first bullet point is a perfect example of this: It is dressed up in fancy pseudo-scientific talk about significant digits and decimal places, but it does not even describe what molecular biologists are measuring in the first place.
ROTFLMAO!
I guess they have nothing to fear from the light of truth.