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 ...
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.
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.
It doesn’t help their supposed scientific objections to be descended from a creationist organization.
I’ve seen so much deceit from them that I’m not leaning towards accepting their statements about the current state of science.
“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.
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.
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.
Viruses do not have plasmids. How do they achieve resistance?
Perhaps you should read what OldGuard1 said again, BtC.
There are several things I like about goodusername GGG and this is one of them. Perhaps the most important one.
==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!!!
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!
:o)
Macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution (which creats believe occurs) over a loooong period of time.
Therefore, creats believe in evolution!!!!!
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.
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.
Of course getting class credit for posting is secondary.
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.