Skip to comments.DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE
Posted on 03/31/2007 1:09:59 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE!
That headline is from the New York Times. Have you seen similar headlines? I have. Many. "New Fossil Find Bolsters Evolution"... "DNA Proves Camels took to the Seas"... "Darwin Vindicated: Top Scientist evolves Yeast into Yeast", and so on.
I have seen many such headlines in the media, in the last few years alone. But this is, to the best of my knowledge, the original "Darwin Proved True" headline. One can say, in a sense, that all subsequent "Darwin Proved True" articles evolved from this one, the common ancestor of them all, dated (by carbon dating) to Sept 22, 1912.
This is an important fossil find. You will note the similarities to modern-day "Darwin Proved True!" reports, clearly indicating common descent with little modification. The ingredients of a fine modern "Darwin Proved True" tale are all here, of course - the waffling, the exaggeration, the impressive buzz-words, the fantastical embellishments, the self-contradictions, the fairytales. Such as...
A race of ape-like and speechless man, inhabiting England hundreds of thousands of years ago, when they had for their neighbors the mastodon and other animals now extinct is the missing link in the chain in man's evolution, which leading scientists say they have discovered in what is generally described as "the Sussex skull." To this Dr. Woodward proposes to give the name of "eoanthropus," or "man of dawn."
Yes sir, upon this fairytale, the New York Times put the headline "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE", even though the article ends with the lines
There is, he thinks, a point of doubt as to the jawbone. It was not found in the same place as the skull, and he holds it possible that it does not belong to the skull. It is unquestionable apelike and it is not impossible that further examination may show that it does not fit the skull at all.
In other words, it is all nonsense, but nevertheless, DARWIN PROVED TRUE!! And thus began the classic genre of reporting on evolutionary matters, a trend which continues to this day.
This is an important archeological find, of special interest to participants and spectators of the ever-entertaining Darwin wars. But in case you are not familiar with this news article (you should be), I'll tell you what the punchline is. Scroll down to the end of the article...
And this great discovery, upon which it was announced that "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE"! is also affectionally known as...
PILTDOWN MAN !
Before you reply to this, ponder carefully this quote from Scott "Dilbert" Adams:
I should add that the first person to explain that science continuously revises itself -- and thats what makes it so great! -- has no free will.
What? You have no confidence in revisionist science? Oh ye of little faith.
If it came from the NYT, it is suspect.
How was Piltdown Man DISproved by the way? Answer: Science, right? So you're using what, exactly, to prove your point?
Ah, the Piltdown Man. How was that proven to be a fake, btw?
The main thing I get from this article is that reporting of science often suffers.
There is no reputable scientist I've ever seen who say something like he had "proved Darwin true." They'd take away his scientist license at the next meeting.
Scientists are human and we all want to do something worthwhile but time after time I've seen a scientist make a careful statement about the possible implications of his work if they are confirmed by other scientists.
Then a science publication gets the story right but tacks on a headline or tries to make the story interesting because they want to sell copies too.
Then a newspaper picks it up and takes a phrase or two out of context, draws an over reaching conclusion and adds an exploitive headline and a science urban legend is born.
The giveaway in this story is that "proving a theory" is a math term not a science term. So we are never gonna "prove Darwin," first because Darwin said lots of things and some of them were wrong. But second because a theory in science if the best available and generally accepted explantion to fit the facts - you can disprove a theory but you can't prove one.
We can both agree that it was not accomplished by the weaving-of-fairytales method.
That not to say that scientist don't suffer from all human flaws and often get an extra helping of arrogence.
I recently spent couple of torturous hours at a hideously expensive restaurant with non-existent service trapped between two junior professors trying to the women that a few of naively brought with lines like "Fortunatley I had written just such a super-computer compiler that very week and was able to save the day."
When we were alone in the car, my wife said "You owe me more for tonight than you can ever repay so I'm just going to write it off under wifely duties."
Didn't want you to think I was arguing that scientists never exaggerate or believe their own hype- its just that they tend to be very careful about career ending false claims of grandeur.
Yeah, I agree, they didn't look it up in the Bible.
Maybe it was that crazy "science" stuff I keep hearing about. Some sort of strange process known as "peer review".
Apparently, neither you nor Darkwolf377 has any free will. So then, the question is, what curious mechanistic process compells you to post those comments?
Piltdown Man: Fake but accurate.
Because you say so?
I can't speak for Darkwolf, but not believing in a god makes me more likely to accept the notion of free will, not less.
No becaise Evolution says everything happens by random chance (It's right there somewhere in Oriole of Specie)
Not random, per se, more based on environmental pressures.
Because Scott "Dilbert" Adams says so. Do you guys read posted articles before commenting? It's a good habit. Try it.
I just find it funny when someone uses the progress of accumulated knowledge, leading to an inevitable discarding of something proved untrue, as "proof" that science is somehow invalid as a field of endeavor. Anti-intellectualism is always so riddled with ignorance and inconsistency that it's amusing to watch its adherents in action.
So the theory goes.
Isn't it amusing how one man's opinion becomes another man's theory...and a fact is born?
What's curious about it? The Piltdown hoax is rather well known. Creationists tart it up all the time in order to pretend that it somehow discredits science. Usually they *know* that *scientists* figured it was a fraud from the getgo and proved as much rather quickly, yet they insist on telling the story as if it somehow *discredits* science when in fact it does exactly the opposite. It's not the least bit "curious" that freepers would know this. You think you're the first person to try to pull this stunt here? Not even close.
The ablity of some folks to simply cook up a non-issue like this when confronted with an opinion not one's own is always amusing. But to stick to the point of the thread instead of dodging it, using scientific evidence to "prove" how flawed science is is pretty funny.
If you noticed I just included you with others who made comments which were pinged to me; that wasn't addressed to you, but to the author of the quoted line.
Huh? Facts aren't born from theories. Theories are born from facts. Amusingly, you have it exactly backwards.
What other inane hallucinations occured to you as you read the article? Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?
And how where these "facts" confirmed as facts?...Anyone who spends any real time in the sciences knows that facts are just long accepted theories.
Uh, obviously you didn't even read the article--I was making reference to the comments ABOUT the article in the original posting.
Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?
Wow, you really are damning Darwin with that stunning intellectual debate-thing. Really making your point--what's next, "Sez you!" or "I know evolution's false, God told me so"?
Your post is a giant straw man argument. Completely useless and logically flawed.
What other inane hallucinations occured to you as you read the "comments ABOUT the article in the original posting"? Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?
You're the one who believes in unseen forces, not me.
It's really funny watching your complete inability to back up your silly posting. All whining and anger, no facts, no intelligent debate, just childish insults at those who have called you on your embarassing use OF science to "disprove" science.
Please, continue, it's fun watching a fantasist like yourself try to paddle to shore in his sinking dinghy.
So a faux-engineer from PacBell decides who has 'free will' and who does not?
Maybe he has to reject free will in order to promote his own argument? An argument that postulates a marginal cost to every decision we make.
It's not surprising coming from a MBA economist (which is what Scott Adam is), but it's not very satisfying in either a teleological nor a etiological sense.
Do you guys read posted articles before commenting? It's a good habit. Try it.
Always do. Top-to-bottom, --even when it's creationist garbage.
1. use OF science to "disprove" science
2. science is somehow invalid as a field of endeavor
I would ask you to point out where both these peculiar figments of your imagination occur in the original posting. But anyone with common sense can see that the original posting contains nothing of the sort. It is clear, then, that you experienced more than one hallucination after all. Is that it, or is there more? Perhaps a whole pantheon of little devils, gnomes, and nimble sprites, sprinkled with a few bible-quotes, flew by your eyes.
Hey, the accountant said so, so it must be true.
I'm not going to pile on except to state, "Ask your Medical Doctor about Evolution. Please!".
I often find it humorous when the anti-science crowd pulls out Piltdown Man from the dusty past to "prove" that science is wrong and only their pastor is right.
Piltdown proves the validity of science. Even in those earliest days of science - nearly a century ago - it was questioned. That is was proven a fraud is the beauty of science. Scientists are now not only allowed to question, but are expected to question. It is their duty.
When was the last time a religionist was encouraged or even allowed to question the Biblical account of creation?
Please, you're making this so easy for me, it's embarassing.
Your whole point is that Piltdown Man was reported as proof of Darwin's position.
But we all know Piltdown Man was a fraud.
Now, seeing how it was accepted as "fact" for years, what field of endeavor exposed the truth? What was used to show that these remains couldn't possibly be what they were claimed?
Was it the arts? Was it religion, or...was it science?
Endeavor to answer, Fairyman.
Cavemen are still around today, I see them all the time on Geico commercials. And it`s not PC to call them "Cavemen", they don`t appreciate that.
One tends to lead to cult following.
Science isn't invalid as a field of endeavor.
But scientists are often smug and wrong. This article represents one small example.
And not only "science" disproved "science" in the piltdown man saga. Wisdom, which knows the usual outcome of exagerating claims--which understands "pride before the fall"--provides valuable insight into WHY this story occured, and why the claims enumerated in the article might well be destined for "scientific revision".
The hubris of scientists--which runs counter to the explicit caution of the "scientific method"--is, at some level, a mythical elevation of science. There are limits to scientific knowledge that scientists would do well to admit and remember. Specifically, the human spirit, and the existence of God, will always remain beyond the capacity of scientific inquiry to explain.
Scientists should practice fidelity to the modesty of the scientif method. But many don't. The current "scientific consensus" on human-caused global warming, complete with apocalyptic scenarios, is the latest example of "mythic" scientific over-reach.
The problem with scientists usually begins when they come to believe that their field is capable of validating or disqualifying all other areas of human experience and understanding.
It's simple enough to discuss these issues without ruffling feathers.
It is truly a myth (or possibly a culturally motivated fabrication) that those of greater intelligence are more likely to to be atheist.
I have found in my experiences that those who are of the middle intelligence level tend to take the sciences more literally and as the intelligence scale goes up things become more relative.
There is simply no perfect man-made explanation for the infinite complexity of things.
The more you learn about science and the world around you the more you understand how little we know.
You sound like the sort of person that believes a *Creationist* can't be a scientist...
There's a Baltimore baseball player who gets paid in gold?
This entertainment starts and I don't even have my air-pop popcorn popper to carry me through the clinches.
Excellent article ping...
Ah, but that is the exquisite power of Science.
Uh, does this raise to the level of "hugh and series" on FR?
By and large most members of the media are leftists and by and large most leftists are anti-religious...or rather anti-Christian.
Therefore they (the press) seize upon any and all opportunities to promote their anti-God agenda. Evolution, as commonly taught and understood, is the ultimate "God didn't do it" statement.
"See", they say, "we don't need God to explain the world. We have another explanation that doesn't require a God."
This belief gives them justification for establishing their own rules of right and wrong. Their own rules for morality.
This article shows that this is nothing new.