Skip to comments.Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_boredEdited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times
Its the law of gravity that forces the Moon to continue fall upward away from the Earth. Isn't science wonderful?
I am somewhat of a naturalist, but I must disagree with you here. As the writer of the article points out, understanding science makes one less dependent on myth and superstition. One man's myth and superstition is another man's religion.
I completely agree that evolutionary theory has reached the status of scientific law. I also think that the "intelligent design" movement is a step backward as far as the progress of science is concerned.
Nonetheless, I keep thinking back to Ben Franklin, when he said he regretted not living a hundred years into his future so that he could see all the wondrous things the discoveries of his day would yield. Personally, I would not want to live a hundred years into the future from today because I see very little good coming out of mice with human brains and terrorists able to make nuclear bombs in their basements.
It may be that the only thing standing between civilization as we know it and a society made up of genetically perfected clones created by scientists is myth and superstition. And so I am conflicted. I'd like to think that the positive side of human nature will prevail when it comes to the application of science, but I have my doubts.
The scientists may well be freeing society from the burdens of superstition, myth and fairy tales. But they haven't really thought out the cultural implications of spoiling the glue that has held this civilization together for several thousand years, A lot of good has come out of the fear of God, and we ought to be somewhat less inclined to pull that rug out from under our society.
Nope, that's just a canard that creationists trot out when they run out of arguments that have even the semblance of validity.
It seems to break some folks heads to have to think too hard.
Funny, it's usually hard headed folk with the problem.
"Evolution, man's creation, elevates some men as being more equal than the rest of man. Thus the need for things like entitlement programs, cause not all are of the fittest."
Not even close. Are you going to deny that all people are different, unique individuals? Only the egalitarians (left and right) want to spread the lie that we are all equal. We are demonstrably NOT. This is a fact.
The reason we have entitlement programs is because the egalitarians believe that WE ARE all equal, but that the rich, the *winners of life's lottery* have stolen from the poor. It is a denial of the uniqueness of each individual.
Your desperate attempt to link natural selection with the welfare state is hilarious. If evolutionists were following *the survival of the fittest*, they would be against the welfare state. You have it EXACTLY opposite.
Biology is not a guide for politics.
I see we are in for a long round of bickering over terminology -- theories, laws, facts -- as if the choice of words alters reality.
OK, but who are you going to defend solipsism TO? ;-)
"I have done a lot of reading and taken several college level courses. There are some major problems with evolution in my mind.
1. The origin of life on earth. (presumably prokaryotic cells in a non oxygen containing atmosphere)
2. The origin and evolution of DNA.
3. The evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
There are some other technical problems concerning the fact that some animals aren't well adapted to the environment that they exist in."
You are not being honest with your questions. Both #1 and #2 are not part of the TOE, as you well know. If you want to question current thought concerning Abiogenesis, that's fine, but it does not impact Evolution. #3 Is well understood, if you will consult any good cell biology text.
The adaptation question is quite simple. I'd ask you to ask yourself, if you will. Organisms don't have to be "well adapted" to their environment, they just have to be successful. The crunch comes when there is competition in that environment or when it is invaded by a "better adapted" creature. Then change either occurs or one species is either marginalized or becomes extinct. Happens all the time.
For the men, WWF.
For the ladies, Oprah.
It would have been better if you switched the men with the ladies.
Well Watson chose to bring up the subject of DNA in an article on Darwin. Now we can't ask how it evolved? Also doesn't DNA's ability to replicate itself depend on RNA and how did these two co-evolve?
Try reading some good science books based on peer-review scientific literature; some of you misunderstandings may be corrected.
It ain't true just because it's on the internet; there's lots of tricksters out there with their hands out.
It's being actively considered.
OK, but who are you going to defend solipsism TO? ;-)
Hmmm, my imagination is acting up today. I thought I heard something that I didn't say...
Even worse: when a solipcist says "I'm just not feeling myself today..."
The key to the WOT is the implementation of genetic engineering that will raise the fundies' collective IQ levels to the point that they can participate in the modern world.
My perception is that it is not an IQ matter but an overwhelming fear that, without the threat of punishment, people would not behave in any kind of decent way.
And boy, I have my doubts, too, sometimes!
You raise a whole set of excellent points, thank you for the posting--to which I don't have time to reply in detail (maybe later, if the topic engages interest among others
Fortunately, scientists are not empowered to determine alone the application of the knowledge they uncover, nor are scientists absolved of the deep human moral responsibility we all of us should bear. I do have enormous faith in our Constitution and believe our system of government is the best ever devised to ensure (though the process is often fractious and imperfect) that power is not abused, and that the citizenry can exercise both power and restraint of power over their elected representatives.
mice with human brains
My view of the liberal agenda leads me to believe that we already have 'humans with mouse brains.'
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.