Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by metacognative
Opinions
There are valid criticisms of evolution
BY DAVID BERLINSKI
"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."
Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."
Everyone else had better shut up.
In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:
• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?
These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my understanding the great weakness of evolutionary theory is that the mechanism for evolution has never been found. Random genetic mutations didn't pan out. I don't doubt there have been changes in species. But scientists have not been able to explain how or why. Because they are unwilling to look for any "intelligent design" or reason behind the universe. They want everything to be pure physical chance.
Careful there. If you DARE to question the theory of evolution you will be denigrated as an ignorant, slope-headed, bible thumping fool.
The most obvious refutation of Darwinian theory...
In the years since this theory has been presented, nobody has been able to demonstrate the evolution of a single species from one to another.
They can show natural selection *within* a species, but I don't think anyone argues about that point.
Take some horse-flies, put them in a container full of fruit and lets see them evolve into fruit flies... THAT would be the kind of proof we have not seen.
She said it, I didn't. Plus, think of all of those PhD careers that will go down the drain if evolution were found to be "unscientific."
BTW, regarding your tagline, G-d may not be a Republican, but He votes that way.
This could get REAL ugly Real fast. Get all the women and children out of the room.
yeah so some supernatural agent (a big guy in the sky, presumably) waved a magic wand and made 2 people. He then put em on a planet with he also created, but with rocks that were already a billion years old.
Good alternative theory!
No thats not the theory. The creation theory is, "Evolution is a crappy theory so ours is right. Facts you want facts? run away!"
Succinctly put. I have no problem with religions that don't own waterslides, require their members to surgically remove genitalia or crash airplanes into things. But using science to validate Religious Mythology is just SILLY!
Look nooobies. If you want to discuss your feelings fine. Do so calmly and rationally. Do not attack the other posters for having a religious point of view. I will not sit here while you act like high school punks. Understood?
Not exactly breaking news. I have yet to meet an evolutionist who will state unequivocally and without reservation that they cannot be wrong.
yes - faith is also required to use crosses against vampires - if you don't have it, the cross won't work. I wonder if vampires made it onto the ark? And why don't they evolve too?
I can imagine a strain that only attacks fruits, or bugs...
The debate over evolution should be split into two pieces. First of all, is the fossil record old and spread over millions of years, or does the poster believe in a young earth model?
And if there is agreement that the fossil record is old, then there can be a debate on how species form within that framework. Because if one poster believes in a young earth model and the other does not, you aren't gonna agree on anything because your worldviews are completely different. Too much of the debate on FR tends to skip the first step, which means both sides are yelling at each other over completely different premises.
Are you here to discuss the thread or bash religion, especially the Judeo-Christian one?
"And "it just happened, randomnly" is much more sufficient...."
Random stuff happens every second of every day. How often do supernatural agents create worlds?
For that matter, why shouldn't other creation myths be considered equally valid? Maybe we should be looking for evidence that the universe was pooped out by a giant frog or a flat dish perched on the back of a giant turtle?
Reject Reason and ALL kinds of dopey ideas become equally valid. That's why Feminists dumped it a decade ago...they HAD to!
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.