Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)

LA Times Calendar Live.com ^ | September 18, 2005 | James D. Watson

[snarks_when_bored]

Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot

By James D. Watson

September 18, 2005

Editor's Note:
"Nobel laureate James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, has edited and provided commentary for a new anthology of Charles Darwin's four major books, collected in one volume by Running Press. Watson's essay introducing "Darwin: The Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea" is excerpted here.


I first became aware of Charles Darwin and evolution while still a schoolboy growing up in Chicago. My father and I had a passion for bird-watching and when the snow or the rain kept me indoors, I read his bird books and learned about evolution. We also used to frequent the great Field Museum of Natural History, and my fragmentary knowledge of evolution helped guide me through the myriad specimens in the museum. It is extraordinary the extent to which Darwin's insights not only changed his contemporaries' view of the world but also continue to be a source of great intellectual stimulation for scientists and nonscientists alike. His "On the Origin of Species" was rightly praised by biologist Thomas Henry Huxley as " … the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge which has come into men's hands since the publication of Newton's "Principia."

When Darwin returned from his five-year voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he turned over his various collections to experts on birds, beetles, mollusks and the like. John Gould was Darwin's bird expert. Darwin was surprised to learn from him that the finches he had collected on the Galapagos Islands closely resembled similar birds on the South American continent some 600 miles away, yet the finches of one island were different from those of the other islands…"

Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times

[snarks_when_bored]

As usual, Watson pulls no punches.

[snarks_when_bored]

Ping

[Just mythoughts]

"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."

All created by the mind of man. So naturalistic and materialistic.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[snarks_when_bored]

All created by the mind of man.

I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism).

[bkepley]

that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity

That's fine but sometimes laws change.

[Sidebar Moderator]

This has now been excerpted. All material originating from the Los Angeles Times needs to be excerpted and linked.

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

Thanks.

[Just mythoughts]

"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)."


Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

[ClearCase_guy]

as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law

Any chemist can go in the lab and demonstrate Avogadro's law. Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.

[snarks_when_bored]

Well-established laws in science rarely change; rather, they are superseded by laws which take account of a wider (or more extreme) range of phenomena. Contrast the range of applicability of Newton's inverse square law of gravity with Einstein's general relativistic theory of gravity. You can send a rocket around the moon and back using Newton's law and not be off by much; but if you want to understand what happens around a neutron star or a black hole, say, Einstein's theory is essential.

[snarks_when_bored]

Thanks, and very sorry for the faux pas!

[Skylab]

Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

Reality.

[snarks_when_bored]

"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)."

Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."

Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?

[bkepley]

And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?

[Ninian Dryhope]

"law of gravity"

Didn't Newton come up with the law of gravity? Since we have known about gravity so long, what exactly is the nature of gravity? I understand the relationship between mass and distance and all, but why is there gravity? How does it work? I do not think the best minds have been able to reconcile gravity with the forces in a unified theory have they?

[snarks_when_bored]

And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?

The key here is that Aristotle, as brilliant as he was, had no conception of empirical science as practiced since the late 15th century or so in the West. His results were arrived at by some observation, yes, but his theoretical conceptions were spun out of his reason and were not subject to empirical test.

So I'll point out that in my previous reply to you I wrote: "Well-established laws in science..."

[Just mythoughts]

"You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."

When did science become about the right or wrong question?

Whose law is it that "not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency".

Doesn't this mean that life is a lottery or a bad accident depending on the status of ones life???

[snarks_when_bored]

"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."

Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?

Uh, yes...but not all at once. 4 billion years is a very, very, very long time.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."

Your statement seems to admit that some things that happen, happen as a result of some conscious, directing agency. Or did you really mean that nothing happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency?