robust in this context means that the theory is non-testable. It can adapt to cover any evidence or lack of evidence, hence it is a meaningless theory which cannot be falsified, cannot be tested and cannot predict anything.
Evolution is the only scientific theory which has as its goal to confound a particular religion. It seem that Darwin had 'issues' that went beyond a mere concern for the promotion of science.
Facing such a reality,"
Facing what reality? All we have here in the opening statement, is one man's opinion, and suddenly it's some kind of inescapable "reality." There are other scientists who look at the same universe and see a wealth of information pointing to a vast intellect designing the universe for the support of life. The parameters for this are so narrow, that the odds of this happening on earth are next to impossible, even with billions of years of blind chance working.
You want to give Bob a try and think you can defend the liberal propaganda of evolution, we'd all love to hear you try at 1-800-8Enyart between 9 and 10 p.m. ET on weeknights. Enyart is simply looking for one piece of evidence that proves evolution occurred.
The mind? What mind? First you gotta prove the mind exists.
The only reason Dawkins can even make such an assertion and make it intelligible is because human beings have the capacity to discern and create design, and to fit it to a clear purpose. They also understand and employ concepts of good and evil, pity and cruelty. To be logically consistent Dawkins would have to deny the existence of such things in human experience. Dawkins is a highly educated, well-written, blind fool.
"Most Existentially penetrating?" Try most Nihilistic. Shermer has the logical incompetence to say, in effect, "Oh yes, Nihilism in neo-Darwinian dress is perfectly compatible with all religion except for those icky fundamentalists, whose popularity is regrettable." (Challenge Dawkins, and of course you are an icky fundamentalist.) Not to mention that, if the Universe is blind and pitifully indifferent, and we are the products of said blind and pitiably insouciant Universe, then why are we humans truth-loving and truth-seeing organisms? Why are we not in the image of our "creator"? One who accepts Dawkins' initial fantasies truly risks ending in indifferentist subjectivism, for his sophomoric attempts at metaphysical gravitas end in irrationalism: just look at his memetic theory of knowledge, where science itself is but a matter of copying other people. No doubt I shall soon be shouted down by those screeching "Hail, High Priest of neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism and Most Hieratic Hierophant of Memes!" (But I must admit: The First Church of Memetic-Scientific Irrationalism has a nice ring to it.)
Moreover, Shermer caricatures the ID movement; at least one of its proponents, Michael Behe, is not a young-earth Creationist. Even more, if ID is in fact a valid method of investigation, then it is silent on the matter of a given entity's creator. ID could support Francis Crick's speculation about intelligent extraterrestrial DNA "seeders" just as easily as basic monotheistic creation tenents.
Bad arguments matched with political advocacy like those shown here do Scientific American no good, and they only serve to further undermine my trust in the scientific establishment. Shermer's forays into education advocacy are exactly what one would expect from a member of the Governmental-Educational Complex, whose only apparent purpose is to strangle intelligent thought among our youth.
Incorrect.
Theory is determined culturally.
Theory does not stand or fall on "evidence."
Rather, the culture that believes in a theory will stand or fall if belief in that theory increases or decreases that culture's ability to survive.
Where does the Constitution authorize tax-funded socialist public schools?
Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Then, the entire rest of the piece is a denial of this premise. Instead of upholding the view that there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, we are fed all these anything but indifferent evaluations, such as,
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing,....
But why in the world should they be disturbing if "at bottom," there is, "no purpose, no evil and no good?" What difference does it make to Mr. Michael Shermer what anyone believes, since there is no purpose anyway?
He certainly sounds like he thinks there is a purpose when he says, "To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation." The obvious question is, why? What difference does it make. Why doesn't he act like he really believes in "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference?"
We could overlook the internal contradictions, if nothing really mattered, but in case he is not being totally accurate (or lucid) about that, we'll mention them.
He refers to evolution as a theory, which it cannot be. It is an unproven hypothesis, in the scientific sense, and can never be proven in the scientific sense, since no experiment can be performed to test it.
He is actually unconsciousnly aware of this, and unwittingly contradicts the assertion that evolution is a theory by the this, "The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved." So, evolution, he unwittingly admits is not a branch of science, but a hypothetical branch of history, and the "proof" he offers is for history, not the confimation of a scientific hypothesis.
I guess if there's no good or evil, you can compare anything to Holocaust denial.
In other words, this is a battle of politics, not empirical science.
Trash.
Aren't we lucky that truth isn't subject to democratic vote.
The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgnäger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions.
These two sentences contradict each other.