Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberating biology from a Procrustean bed of dogma (even the evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle!!!)
Science Literature (ARN) ^ | September 25, 2009 | David Tyler, Ph.D.

Posted on 09/29/2009 1:39:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

In a Commentary essay, Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld provide an analysis of biological thought that differs profoundly from that presented by those celebrating the Bicentenary of Darwin's birth and, incidentally, the recently published AP Biology Standards.

"This is the story of how biology of the 20th century neglected and otherwise mishandled the study of what is arguably the most important problem in all of science: the nature of the evolutionary process. This problem [ . . ] became the private domain of a quasi-scientific movement, who secreted it away in a morass of petty scholasticism, effectively disguising the fact that their primary concern with it was ideological, not scientific."

The authors want to see biology liberated "from the Procrustean bed of dogma on which it has been cast for so long". A radical overhaul is warranted. The issues are comparable to...

(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; biochemistry; biology; catholic; christian; creation; dna; epigenetics; evangelical; evolution; evoreligion; genetics; genome; ideology; ideologyofscience; intelligentdesign; judaism; medicine; notasciencetopic; philosophy; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; scientism; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 09/29/2009 1:39:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zebra 2; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 09/29/2009 1:45:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

So much for Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”!


3 posted on 09/29/2009 1:47:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It's too bad one can't convert this into a tagline
[from the linked article];


4 posted on 09/29/2009 1:53:54 PM PDT by BlueDragon (I'm such a science denier, I should be thrown UNDER the jail!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Creationists celebrating the new leaders of evolutionary biology?

God only knows what's going on.

5 posted on 09/29/2009 1:56:20 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

I think they’re counting on no one’s reading the article...


6 posted on 09/29/2009 1:57:42 PM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Notice the understatement? That paragraph has evo-religion written all over it!


7 posted on 09/29/2009 2:01:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

From “Science Literature (ARN)”

Congratulations, sounds like you got a real science site doubting evolution!

Oh, wait:

ARN = Access Research Network

Formerly known as Students for Origins Research, a neo-creationist group.

Currently it is essentially an arm of the Discovery Institute’s CSC, ID’s main proponents.

Almost had me there.


8 posted on 09/29/2009 2:03:03 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Did you happen to read the paper they are doing the literature review on???


9 posted on 09/29/2009 2:03:56 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Please present a plausible mechanism of achieving drug resistance by microorganisms within the creationist dogma.


10 posted on 09/29/2009 2:15:43 PM PDT by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat
...."Please present a plausible mechanism of achieving drug resistance by microorganisms within the creationist dogma."....

Please inform yourself of the arguments before opening your pie hole to show how much you are in the dark.

If you hit someone in the nose every day, how long does it take for them to duck and run when they see you coming? That isn't evolution. Evolution is when they turn into a bear and eat you.

11 posted on 09/29/2009 2:23:52 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

So, micro organisms have reasoning intelligence?


12 posted on 09/29/2009 2:39:34 PM PDT by rsquare (is it 2012 yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat
Please present a plausible mechanism of achieving drug resistance by microorganisms within the creationist dogma. That's called microevolution. In fact, microbes are designed specifically for that purpose. The genes that control surface protein expression and metabolism are separate from the main DNA of the organism, in little rings called plasmids. These mutate very rapidly in a controlled manner to change up the properties of the cell, in a manner similar to how the human immune system works. Quite to the contrary, bacteria use a wide variety of methods try to defend their chromosomal DNA from mutation and repair damage that occurs. Oh wait, I thought evos were the ones who were supposed to know about biology, and we were supposed to be a bunch of ignorant fools?
13 posted on 09/29/2009 2:41:27 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“So much for Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”!”

—Why? I don’t see anything in the article actually attacking or disagreeing with Darwinism, let alone evolution.
It appears to be an article attacking reductionism and dogma. Other than being a bit melodramatic and pretentious, I don’t have an issue with anything in the article. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not sure what you see as so significant in the article.


14 posted on 09/29/2009 3:11:33 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; GodGunsGuts; metmom

From “Science Literature (ARN)”

Congratulations, sounds like you got a real science site doubting evolution!

Oh, wait:

ARN = Access Research Network

Formerly known as Students for Origins Research, a neo-creationist group.

Currently it is essentially an arm of the Discovery Institute’s CSC, ID’s main proponents.

Almost had me there.


Yeah....riiiiiiight...almost had ME there!

That’s a pretty cute set-up.

No one can question or challenge evolution unless they’re evolutionists? Is that about how it works?

Like the article explains, that’s not science, that’s dogma/ideology.

This reminds me of the people questioning zerrhoid that get shouted down as racists...

so how exactly DOES one challenge the annointed one if they happen to be white?

I’m still waiting on answers to both questions!


15 posted on 09/29/2009 3:33:40 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

Well...I for one am just stunned at your conclusions.


16 posted on 09/29/2009 3:37:58 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rsquare
So, micro organisms have reasoning intelligence?

Huh?

17 posted on 09/29/2009 3:38:06 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

So now you too agree that “Neo-Darwinism cannot deliver answers, because its vision of biology is fundamentally flawed”?


18 posted on 09/29/2009 3:44:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; antiRepublicrat

Funny thing is, the literature review is about the growing number of evos who are challenging the neo-Darwinian synthesis!!!


19 posted on 09/29/2009 3:50:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: babble-on; GodGunsGuts; metmom
I think they’re counting on no one’s reading the article...

Actually...funny you mention, because alot of closet liberals have indicated they don't bother reading the articles while attacking them.

20 posted on 09/29/2009 3:50:25 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: babble-on; tpanther; metmom; count-your-change; CottShop; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Liberty1970; ...
The whole point in posting it was so that FReepers will read it. The literature review is about the growing number of evolutionary biologists who are breaking with the neo-Darwinian synthesis. I have been predicting that this day would come for the last several years, and it appears that that day is finally dawning, much to the horror of the "new atheists", such as Richard Dawkins et al, who have staked their reputations on neo-Darwinian reductionism, and are scurrying away from the light like wounded vampires.


21 posted on 09/29/2009 3:58:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

The lesson to be learned from your link appears to be that dissent from Darwin is tolerated, just as long as it only goes so far...

and even then, that may take several decades!

Thanks.


22 posted on 09/29/2009 4:02:59 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat; Agamemnon; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; Texas Songwriter
Please present a plausible mechanism of achieving drug resistance by microorganisms within the creationist dogma.

Variation within species and natural selection account for the adaptability of organisms.

Extrapolating that into speciation is where the controversy comes in.

Even Answers in Genesis and ICR don't dispute the roll natural selection plays in variation within species.

Only the evos think that creationists don't recognize it.

Pinging some creationist scientists for their input.

23 posted on 09/29/2009 4:04:18 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

It doesn’t help their supposed scientific objections to be descended from a creationist organization.


24 posted on 09/29/2009 4:36:57 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ve seen so much deceit from them that I’m not leaning towards accepting their statements about the current state of science.


25 posted on 09/29/2009 4:38:11 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Deceit from who?...ARN, or the evo paper they are reviewing?
26 posted on 09/29/2009 4:47:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“So now you too agree that “Neo-Darwinism cannot deliver answers, because its vision of biology is fundamentally flawed”?”

—Ah, I did miss that. I was paying closer attention to the text in the boxes that he was commenting on. Another reason I probably missed that – is that I don’t see anywhere where the article describes any “fundamental flaws” in neo-Darwinism. The sentence is also a non-sequitur. It’s at the end of a section talking about problems of reductionism in genetics – but although many biologists may be guilty of reductionism, there’s nothing inherently reductionist about neo-Darwinism. The stuff leading up to that sentence was talking about simplistic approaches to genetics – but what on earth does that have to do with evolution or Darwinism? It would make more sense to blame Mendel or Mendelism (although that’d be silly too), with the idea of “a gene for this” and “gene for that”. Why or how would things have been different if neo-Darwinism didn’t exist? Of course our early approaches to genetics was going to be overly simple; he may as well write a pretentious condescending article on the simplistic approach scientists had at the start of the 20th century regarding atomic theory.


27 posted on 09/29/2009 4:50:59 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Deceit from who?

Deceit from the creationist/ID movement, especially anybody related to the Discovery Institute. That those in the movement were willing to perjure themselves order to further their religion is quite telling. Personally I find that ironic, since they swore an oath to their god to tell the truth.

28 posted on 09/29/2009 4:53:18 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

They linked the paper where your fellow evos declare they are parting ways with neo-Darwinian reductionism. Read it for yourself, and then tell me whether or not Dr. Tyler properly characterized it.


29 posted on 09/29/2009 4:54:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

Viruses do not have plasmids. How do they achieve resistance?


30 posted on 09/29/2009 5:02:59 PM PDT by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rsquare
They do what they have to do to survive. If they don’t survive, they are removed from the gene pool and replaced with the survivors. That is still not changing from a lizard to a bird, or an ape to a man, which evolutionists say can happen.
31 posted on 09/29/2009 5:18:14 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat; OldGuard1

Perhaps you should read what OldGuard1 said again, BtC.


32 posted on 09/29/2009 5:31:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; GodGunsGuts
Ah I did miss that.

There are several things I like about goodusername GGG and this is one of them. Perhaps the most important one.

33 posted on 09/29/2009 5:36:16 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; AndrewC

==Deceit from the creationist/ID movement, especially anybody related to the Discovery Institute. That those in the movement were willing to perjure themselves order to further their religion is quite telling. Personally I find that ironic, since they swore an oath to their god to tell the truth.

I am referring this allegation to AndrewC, as he knows more about this subject in his little finger than I ever will. However, I have read AndrewC’s replies on the subject, and I must say, unless you have something totally new to say on the subject, I agree with AndrewC!!!


34 posted on 09/29/2009 5:41:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
It doesn’t help their supposed scientific objections to be descended from a creationist organization.

Ummmm...

"You almost had me fooled there"...is that the theme of your exchanges on this thread because that's nowhere NEAR any kind of coherent answer!

35 posted on 09/29/2009 5:46:15 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

:o)


36 posted on 09/29/2009 5:55:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

Macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution (which creats believe occurs) over a loooong period of time.

Therefore, creats believe in evolution!!!!!


37 posted on 09/29/2009 6:14:43 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
There is the fault in the argument! THERE IS NOOOOO MACRO EVOLUTION! None. Not one. Ever. You cannot say a cow used to be a whale without a transitional form. There is none. Ever! Saying Micro evolution is evolution doesn't wash. Real science calls it adaptation. The bacteria is still a bacteria.

This is a waste of time to me, arguing the same old arguments over and over that has become a religion for evo's. They have failed to produce scientific evidence, so they just repeat old arguments over and over.

Science requires proof, and repeatability. Deforming fruit flies don't make them turn into butterflies. They are just a deformed fruit fly.

38 posted on 09/29/2009 6:59:22 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; GodGunsGuts
Creationists celebrating the new leaders of evolutionary biology?

God only knows what's going on.

I think the logic is that Woese was once considered a crackpot, and now his work is accepted science (Darwin's natural selection also took decades to be accepted science), therefore whatever ignorance and deception GGG and his buddies profess will one day become accepted science, too.

39 posted on 09/29/2009 7:01:21 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The whole point in posting it was so that FReepers will read it.

Of course getting class credit for posting is secondary.

40 posted on 09/29/2009 7:02:10 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
Hit a nerve did I? <> It may eventually bring about a different species if done long enough. The COMMON ANCESTOR of the butterfly and fruit flies were mutated and acted on by natural selection to give the butterfly and fruit fly. The evidence is there in the DNA. Just look for it. The fossil record backs it up. We are just another animal, but with a soul. Why is that so hard to accept.
41 posted on 09/29/2009 7:35:25 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Biblical creation has been accepted by Jews and Christians for thousands of years. Darwin’s failed evo-religious creation myth is but a transient blip on our radar screen.


42 posted on 09/29/2009 7:51:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church. Been around a lot longer than the Protestant sects.


43 posted on 09/29/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Sure, and the Earth orbiting the Sun is just a blip on the radar screen, too.


44 posted on 09/29/2009 8:19:37 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


45 posted on 09/29/2009 9:51:01 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
...."Why is that so hard to accept."....

Because it's bulsheite. There is no evidence and the DNA doesn't show it. The fossil record does NOT back that up. Like I said there are NO transitionals. You are making stuff up and calling it truth.

I'm not going to keep posting on this because that was the reason I posted in the first place. You don't know sheite from shinola. Arguing with a rock won't change the rock.

46 posted on 09/30/2009 12:40:07 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

Why the venom?

You are just showing your ignorance.
Have you ever cloned a gene?
Do you have a patent on an engineered gene?
Do you even know how DNA works?
I do.
The proof is in the DNA.

We are bald apes.


47 posted on 09/30/2009 6:49:30 AM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

I’m gonna miss toasters.


48 posted on 09/30/2009 9:29:43 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; g.g.g.

I’d never heard of this organization, and the link looked like a scientific source. Then I did some research because, coming from GGG, I didn’t think it would be. I was right.


49 posted on 09/30/2009 10:15:35 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
Photobucket

Photobucket

50 posted on 09/30/2009 12:51:51 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson