The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[unspun]

...the force vital, the soul, psyche, whatever you want to call it...

I have a beautiful 2 year old niecelet (once removed) named Zoe, so I'm kind of partial.

[unspun]

I was an anarchist when I was at Harvard.

And are you a Libertarian, today? ;-`

[f.Christian]

RWP --- 'free' science (( evolution )) too !

[Right Wing Professor]

Mosquitos have been fossilized, so we know that they've always been here, yet they've remained the same.

They haven't always been here. They've been here since the upper Cretaceous. Jurassic Park, while a fine movie, is not a reliable guide to prehistory.

As for why mosquitos haven't evolved further: evolved further to what? They're highly adapted parasites. How would you like to improve them?

[Right Wing Professor]

A libertarian, someone said, is an anarchist who's too chicken to live without a police force. Me conservative.

[anguish]

Whenever I see all these people who oppose evolution in science classes, I can't help wondering if their faith (as most of them are very religious) is so weak that no field it encompasses can stand being subjected to competition. While the time evolution is presented in school can be counted in hours, some people must see it as more powerful than what creationist parents can do while bringing up their children during years.

[unspun]

Interesting, I was just given a tour of the Union League Club in the Loop (Chicago) and was told (or reminded) just how "progressive" some Republicans were, early on, folks like John C. Fremont, etc.... Some ideas were good and some less so. Back to work, then to re-editing the metasticized post I had pulled, Sunday.

[Right Wing Professor]

What do I want them to evolve to? Well that's the question isn't it? According to Darwin things mutate and evolve. All the time. Regardless of how well they're doing.

News to me. Ever hear the term 'selective pressure'?

Humans are getting taller. Why? We don't need to. It's of no advantage to us, but it's happening.

1. How do you know this increase in stature is genetic, and not diet?
2. How do you know it's of no advantage to us? Ever notice some women really dig tall guys?

If they've had more reproductive events in the last 100 years than humans have had over their entire history, then why have humans changed so much, and mosquitos so little?

Evolution won't cause a species to change if change is a disadvantage. Parasite species in particular are often well adapted to their hosts, and tend to co-evolve with them. Mosquitos, likely, haven't changed morphologically because mammals and birds have the same skin, approximately, they had 100 million years ago, and they're damn good, already, at getting through it.

I did a quick search for data on the mosquito genome, and there has been quite a bit of divergence. Both Culex pipiens and Aedes aegypti, for example, have 3 chromosomes, but pieces of chromosomes 2 and 3 have been translocated between the two species. So two superficially similar mosquitos have been doing quite a bit of evolution at the genetic level. Alas, I couldn't find an estimate of the genetic distance between them in millions of years in the abstract. But bears and racoons, for example, show the same sorts of translocations compared with other mammals.

And finally, of course, mosquitos have evolved even in our lifetime (well, mine anyway). There's been a huge increase in insecticide resistance.

[unspun]

I don't suppose that many of the creationists left in this thread oppose teaching in public schools about evolution theories and evidences. I think we 'simply' maintain that:

1. ...there should be a demarcation as to what about this is in the realm of physical science and what is not, also a fair treatment of what is and is not thoroughly proven by the scientific method.

2. ...there should be a discussion in such classes of what aspects of evolution theory has merely to do with physical sceinces and what has to do with assumptions in the realms of epistemology, ontology, theology, and any other projections.

3. ...culturally maintianed views of origin which may contradict aspects of evolution theories and which are not disproven, should also be treated, also for the sake of intellectual honesty.

Education is a conveyence of many kinds of knowlege and must deal with the perspectives, presuppositions and intentions of those who profess knowledge. (Hence, the modest word "professor" for one who used to be presumed to teach in the classic fashion.) Education is not a place for indoctrination of belief systems posing as physical science, whether evolutionism(s) or creationism(s).

[unspun]

2. ...there should be a discussion in such classes of what aspects of evolution theory have merely to do...

Is there somone I can employ, to be my FReeper proofreader?

[unspun]

And to clear up the redundancy:

1, above: what is actual physical science and why?
2, above: what is not actual physical science and why?

[general_re]

Is there somone I can employ, to be my FReeper proofreader?

I'm "somone", but I charge by the hour ;)

[Right Wing Professor]

there should be a demarcation as to what about this is in the realm of physical science and what is not, also a fair treatment of what is and is not thoroughly proven by the scientific method.

This begs the question that there is some valid distinction between evolution and the evidence for it on the one hand, and physical theories and the evidence for them on the other. I don't accept there is.

here should be a discussion in such classes of what aspects of evolution theory has merely to do with physical sceinces and what has to do with assumptions in the realms of epistemology, ontology, theology, and any other projections.

Evolution qua evolution is a scientific theory. No doubt some people load it up with a lot of other junk about the origin of life, determinism, etc. I agree they shouldn't. The other stuff is largely speculative and has the effect of weakening a well-proven theory in the minds of many people.

...culturally maintianed views of origin which may contradict aspects of evolution theories and which are not disproven, should also be treated, also for the sake of intellectual honesty.

That rules out Genesis, read literally, and all the other creation myths I'm aware of. Primitive people seldom used numbers like 4.5 billion, since you can't count that high.

Education is a conveyence of many kinds of knowlege and must deal with the perspectives, presuppositions and intentions of those who profess knowledge. (Hence, the modest word "professor" for one who used to be presumed to teach in the classic fashion.) Education is not a place for indoctrination of belief systems posing as physical science, whether evolutionism(s) or creationism(s).

Classic multiculturalism, I'm afraid. Evolution is no more a belief system than thermodynamics is.

[PatrickHenry]

By golly, this thread is going to hit 1,000. Cheers for Asimov!

[f.Christian]

Why are there no pre cambrian fossils ?

[balrog666]

Why are there no pre cambrian fossils ?

Why were there no pre-Cambrian f.Christians?

[balrog666]

It's clear that evolution OF SOME SORT takes place, but Darwin's theory that we sprang up out of the mud, and fish turned into dogs, and eventually became humans is passe, and frankly kind of juvenile in its simplicity.

Dogs into humans? What have you been smoking?

And simple? As opposed to what alternative theory?

[js1138]

I would think there is a burden to prove that physical laws are deterministic. This was an assumption for centuries, but only an assumption. There has been evidence against it as far back as Newton and the three body problem. Which, by the way, has no solution nor any prospect of solution.

[js1138]

I assert that we can and do make this observation as a direct result of language

Do you assume that infants are not conscious? How about people born deaf prior to the invention of sign language?

If you believe these people are conscious, do you have any evidence other than non-verbal behavior and similarity of brain structure?