Posted on 06/25/2007 5:18:09 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
Right from the get-go, there on a sign at the entrance to the Evolution exhibit at the Field Museum, real science takes a stand:
"Evolution is one of science's best-supported theories."
Perfect. A profound truth flatly stated, without a hint of equivocation.
Why this pleases me so much, I'm not sure. What did I expect from one of the world's great natural science museums? A diorama of Adam and Eve tossing Frisbees to dinosaurs?
Evolution is, to be sure, one of science's most solid theories, right up there with the theory of gravity, and about this there is zero controversy -- among scientists.
But step outside the realm of real science and rational thought -- step instead into that parallel world of pseudo-science and faith before reason -- and you might pick up a different impression.
You might even come to believe, swayed by the junk science and misinformation of religiously motivated critics, that evolution is one absurdly crazy idea -- c'mon, men from monkeys?
You'd be wrong, of course. You'd be on the same side of history as the biblical literalists who mocked Copernicus and Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the sun.
But what the heck. You could still be president.
George Bush himself says the study of Intelligent Design (biblical creationism dressed in a borrowed lab jacket) has a place in science classrooms.
I've often wondered about that. Is the president pandering to the religious right? Could be. Or is he just profoundly ignorant for a Yale boy? Also entirely possible.
And then there was that debate on TV a couple of weeks ago among the nine men running for the Republican nomination for president. When the moderator asked them to raise their hands if they ''didn't believe in evolution," three hands went up -- Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
I was stunned. I was mortified.
I turned to my son and shook my head and said: "Jesus. ..."
Next time those three bright boys come through Chicago, they had better visit the Field Museum.
Look for natural explanations "We're a natural history museum -- we're not a seminary, we're not a religious organization," said Lance Grande, senior vice president and head of collections and research at the Field Museum. "Our job is to look for natural explanations for complex phenomena." Grande was walking me through the museum's new Darwin exhibit, which runs through the end of the year, and the museum's permanent Evolution exhibit. Both shows represent an effort by the museum to champion the scientific foundations of evolution -- natural selection and genetics -- at a time when evolution is under political and religious assault.
Polls show that at least 40 percent of Americans reject evolution, believing that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.
But Grande said he doubts that most people have seriously thought the issue through.
"There's a huge number of the population that really doesn't care," he said. "So they go to a spiritual adviser. It's not as though they've looked at the evidence and decided evolution is wrong."
All the same, I said, the Field Museum must have anticipated a backlash when it mounted its Evolution and Darwin exhibits.
Grande nodded. "Let me show you something," he said.
Debating an ID man Back in his office, Grande printed out a remarkable 10-page document that, until now, he'd shown only to colleagues. It was a copy of a debate he had carried on by e-mail for about a week in fall 2005 with a defender of Intelligent Design. Scientists are usually loath to debate the Intelligent Design crowd, largely because it's impossible to reason with zealots. But this particular man, a retired elementary school science teacher back East, struck Grande as thoughtful, earnest and -- perhaps best of all -- cordial.
The teacher, whom Grande asked me not to name or quote directly, offered the central ID concept of "irreducible complexity" -- the idea that some things found in nature, such as the human eye, are simply too perfect, too complex, and composed of too many otherwise useless parts to have evolved from anything else. The entire eye could only have been "designed" all at once by an "intelligent" force. You know, like maybe God.
Grande's reply was to point out that every time proponents of ID resolve a mystery of nature by crediting an "intelligent designer," they create a scientific "dead end."
"We already know that there is a theological explanation available for any unresolved question about nature. But that is not science," he wrote. "In science, we need to investigate what needs investigating, not what we have given up on by considering it unexplainable by natural causes. ... Once something is accepted as of divine origin, it is no longer an issue of science. It has become something else."
To another argument made by the teacher -- that the personal religious convictions of many famous scientists over the centuries means God has a place in science -- Grande replied: "Just because religion has been accepted by various scientists through history, this does not make science out of religion. It only means that in addition to having an interest in science, many scientists have also had religious beliefs."
And that, in fact, was Grande's overarching message in the e-mail debate: Science is science, and religion is religion. They are not necessarily in conflict but belong in different realms.
"Even in schools where religion is taught," he wrote, "religion should be taught in religion classes and science should be taught in science classes, and comparisons of the two are a job for philosophy classes."
Evolution predicts the future Darwin's theory of evolution explains and organizes much of what has come before. But like all established theories in science, it also has predictive powers -- it can tell us what comes next. Scientists are hard at work on a vaccine for avian flu, for example, because they can confidently predict it's just a matter of time before the deadly virus mutates -- a form of evolution -- and jumps species from birds to humans.
"The theory of evolution," Grande says, "benefits a society interested in improving."
Tom McNamee's "The Chicago Way" column runs Mondays.
mailto:tmcnamee@suntimes.com
Gee, your whole natural selection argument gets shot to hell, and all you can do is offer up your creationism strawman again? I never made a claim regarding creationism. But thanks for playing anyway. We have some wonderful consolation prizes for you.
How's that again?
I never made a claim regarding creationism.
That's funny. So were my questions too hard for you?
As opposed to you talking about their present environment as though that were their environment 1,000,000 years ago or more. LOL!
these same giraffes who as adults have "naturally selected" long necks to enable them to better see predators even though they have no predators
Were there no predators back when they first evolved? LOL!
these same giraffes who have a decided "naturally selected" height differential between male and female
In case you hadn't noticed, most species show differences between males and females. Maybe not in your case.
Yes, your natural selection argument is total crap.
As opposed to your argument? What was your argument again?
He didn't believe in Darwin's evolution either so kind of stupid to call on him for your point
I Agreee - ‘most people really don’t give a darn and have never bothered to look into the evidence because they’re too busy with other things in their lives. Unfortunate, but that’s the way humans work.’
However, maybe you who are so sure should apply the scientific approach to dis-proving the Bible - most especially the life of Jesus Christ and related prophecies?
Did you know Jesus fulfilled over 100 prophecies? 33 on the day he was crucified? Read Psalm 22.
You experts are always asking the most difficult questions and yet know that most will not be answered in our lifetimes. Yet I’ve posted before and do so again - one of the best chreation science websites to try to explain:
- the movement of continents
- where all the water went from a global flood
- problems with Darwinian theory - even quotes from Darwin and other pro-evolution experts themselves
- origin of comets, asteroids, and meteoroids
- problems with old-age dating theories
and lots more I don’t have the time to list at www.creationscience.com - it’s basically a whole book available online or can be ordered in hardback.
I have yet to see anyone truly refute all the science contained therein.
I checked out the website you referenced. I went to the section titled How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating? and found it is largely tripe.
For example, the site states:
In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less!This is standard creationist nonsense, copied from one creationist website to another without bothering to check its accuracy--of which there is none. The true story is presented in a recent Darwin Central blog.
The reason I check out the radiocarbon dating sections of these sites first is that I know that field, and can spot errors and nonsense quickly. And, if the site is so poor in this one section, what confidence should I have in other sections where I don't know the data as well?
But, I guess this is what we should expect from creation "science" eh?
It's not just journalists that do that. Frankly, it's that kind of behavior that has done more harm to the effort to convince people that evolution is true than anything. (Which is fine by me, by the way.)
When a person can only support their views on something with what amounts to 'your momma', they show they don't have all that much confidence in the position themselves.
Coyoteman I really didn’t expect much more than that in your response. Only pro-evolution info gets your full attention
Did you know that the site author was at one time a proponent of evolution? Walt Brown’s credentials are impecable. The information is presented mainly in laymans terms but provide material and endnotes that go far deeper than any other I’ve seen - including talkorigins.
Many things which you simply refuse to discuss here. I doubt you have read even 2% of this website and far less than that much with an open mind.
Tripe is simply your opinion - one that seems to spend more time attacking others on FR rather than reading well-researched reasoning for:
a)not only the hundreds of problems with evolution but also b)a complete historical framework that may describe events more closely parallel to the Biblical record than any other creation or apologetics website to date.
Then why is he writing nonsense in the section that I referenced?
And if he writes nonsense in that section, why should I trust anything else he says?
I see. So the populations of International Falls, Minnesota and Dalandzadgad, Mongolia consitute two seperate species of man?
They can evolve very quickly into what?
For example, a new strain of bacteria. I am sure you are familiar with the problem of micro-organisms becoming resistant to the drugs that medicine has available to treat disease. This is the result of the evolutionary process.
There seems to be some confusion here about what the term evolution means in biology. It refers to a change in the characteristics of the gene pool of a population over time.
Obviously you do not.
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.