Posted on 09/05/2011 5:17:21 PM PDT by SJackson
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
Paul Krugman thinks that Republicans are dumb, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. In the not-too-distant future he sees a Republican half-wit delivering his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the convention in grunts, beating his chest, and bopping his wife over the head with the a club as he drags her on to the stage by her hair.
Writing in The New York Times, Krugman says, “One of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge.
And, in a time of severe challenges – environmental, economic, and more – that’s a terrifying prospect.”
Terrifying indeed. What’s more frightening then the prospect of a bunch of underdeveloped orangutans with their finger on the nuclear button? But saying that Republicans are anti-science is about as accurate as saying that democrats are anti-religion, and one wonders which is more outrageous: the prospect of a primitive party of Republicans getting control of government, or a Nobel-prize winning columnist in one of the world’s most authoritative newspapers writing broad generalities about how they’re unlettered buffoons who hate learning and science.
What seems even more outrageous is the fact that Krugman’s ire was piqued by Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s comment that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990, I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world’s greatest evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex – then widely regarded as the leading evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Dawkins at Oxford that he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online; in that video, it can be seen that Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side, but actually loses the debate in a student vote. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.
What I learned from these debates, as well as from reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue.
This does not mean that evolution is not true or that the theory is without merit or evidence. It does, however, corroborate what Perry said. Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.
Indeed, Dawkins and the late and celebrated Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fiercely debated basic assumptions about evolution, with Gould arguing that the large gaps in the fossil record make a mockery of a theory of gradual evolution, which is why Gould advocated “punctuated equilibrium” – a variation on Darwinism in which evolution takes place in dramatic periods of change followed by long eons of stasis. Gould maintained this position precisely because, as Perry said, the theory of evolution has “some gaps in it” – in the case of the fossil record, quite literally.
No scientist has ever witnessed evolution directly; science itself says this is impossible given the vast amount of time needed for species to evolve.
Rather, evidence for evolution is found primarily in the fossil record, and evidence for natural selection stems from some famous contemporary observations. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which can produce light or dark offspring, were light in coloration.
However, with the rise in pollution during the Industrial Revolution, the lichens and trees against which the light-colored moths habitually hid from predators were darkened with soot, making the light-colored moths conspicuous to predatory birds and allowing the dark moths to survive.
A similar proof brought for natural selection is the Galapagos Finch, which Darwin theorized was originally a single species but over time changed very slowly in response to the demands of the environment.
For example, the large ground-finch had a big, powerful beak that seemed well-suited to cracking open seeds, while the vampire finch had a long, pointed beak, which allowed it to puncture the flesh of other birds and drink their blood. In each case, Darwin reasoned, beak shape had evolved over time to provide an adaptive advantage.
THE PROBLEM with both these observations is that they are manifestations of horizontal, rather than vertical, evolution, as they document how members of a species may change within the range of characteristics that they already possess. No new traits are generated. Vertical evolution, whereby natural selection can supposedly create entirely new structures, has yet to be directly observed and is thus a theory.
Other challenges remain regarding evolutionary theory, most notably the anthropic principle, which maintains that if the physical laws and constants governing our universe were even slightly different, we would not be here to notice it because the emergence of life could not have occurred.
The English cosmologist Sir Martin Rees argues in his book Just Six Numbers that the values of six numbers determine to a great degree many of the large- and small-scale properties of our universe, and if any of these were changed, even slightly, the universe might not exist at all.
The second number, epsilon, which is roughly .007, describes, roughly speaking, how durable matter is, because it tells us how much energy is required to separate an atom into its constituent particles. If epsilon were .006 – a difference of about 14% – the universe would consist entirely of hydrogen. No other elements would form, because the process of nuclear fusion could not occur. There would be no planets, very little light, no nebulae, no comets and certainly no life.
The value of epsilon is one of the most profound mysteries of the universe.
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his typically flamboyant way, said of it: “It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say ‘the hand of God wrote that number...’” Many leading scientists, like Francis Collins – described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time” – therefore believe that while evolution may indeed be an accurate theory regarding the rise of life, it still requires the guiding hand of a higher power in order to operate.
Indeed, Dawkins himself said in a famous interview with Ben Stein that the intelligent life in our universe may have come from “a higher intelligence” consisting of space aliens that seeded our planet with intelligent life.
IN THE final analysis, however, the biblical account of creation easily accommodates an evolutionary ascent, seeing as the narrative expressly relates that God created the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and finally human life forms in ascending order.
It would be wise of Krugman to remember that the very essence of science is to question, and that stifling doubt is a sin of which religion has been quite guilty in the past – one science should refrain from repeating in the present.
“Many reasonably intelligent people have considered the theories of evolution and consider them severely lacking, with a LOT of projecting and surmising.”
“Well - First this is an Assertion Without Proof. Second, Many reasonably intelligent people assumes they are reasonably intelligent which is unproven and just an opinion. Third that they consider them severely lacking, with a LOT of projecting and surmising. says nothing other than that they have opinions. “
LOL!! You’re right. I have no proof that there are reasonably intelligent people who doubt evolution. Sheesh...
As for “self assembly of the DNA molecule”, (abiogenesis) that is not a scientific fact, it’s not even a confirmed theory, it’s just one unconfirmed hypothesis among several out there including panspermia (seeds from another world) and Intelligent Design (some being started and maintained it all.
Abiogenesis is an article of faith for the evolutionists, “their was the primordial soup, something kick started life, the simple single cell organism urped out, evolution began, after a few billion years that simple single cell became everything you see now”. That meme has been drilled into the heads of the public for the last 50 years through the entertainment/media complex and the educational system. Unfortunately, Darwin had no idea his simple single cell had the complex DNA molecule inside of it. In recent years, evolutionists have back peddled on Abiogenesis and now appear to be trying to decouple the starting point from their theory as they can no longer defend it from a scientific stand point.
Panspermia or the alien “creation” theory simply makes the probability of self-assembly worse as now that event occurs on another world and somehow transports the results through a space vacuum full of hard radiation and then makes it through the Earth’s atmosphere (i.e. survives high melting temperatures and a serious impact). Why this somehow has became a viable theory to comfort the evolutionists camp is perplexing. Externalizing the problem away from Earth or adding a few billion years does not improve the probability of the event to happen.
No, it's not your "turn", because you didn't respond to my post. I will respond to your post by first asking: what, you don't know how to google up word definitions?
But we can cut to the chase here if we skip over the preliminaries and jump right into the tall weeds of "methodological naturalism."
That is what separates science from non-science.
By definition of the word "science", as soon as you introduce some non-natural element, it's not science.
Kind of like you asking me to define "species"?
"Methodological naturalism...This is a different kind of naturalism. It is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors — all hypotheses and events — are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events..."
Then lets cut to the chase and to the very first "event". Do you believe the big bang occurred? What caused that? Explain it "scientifically".
No bear ever changed into a whale, and anyone who said they did should be questioned carefully about it.
About 50 million years ago lived various amphibious animals with some telltale characteristics of whales.
Some vaguely resembled deer, others crocodiles.
Over the following millions of years, these bones are no longer found, but similar others which look more and more like modern whales are found.
Evolution theory says that more primitive forms evolved into what we see today.
That is just what the fossil record show.
Mudtiger: "cold-blooded ancestors having progeny that are warm-blooded has not been observed, therefore not fact."
What has been observed in nature are varying degrees of cold-bloodedness to warm-bloodedness, thus proving there are plenty of intermediate steps between the two.
Some early fossils show characteristics of both warm and cold-bloodedness suggesting they could be some of the original intermediate steps.
Fossil records also show that for many millions of years before there were obvious mammals, there were animals with only some characteristics of mammals -- intermediate forms.
Does respecting evolution make you anti-religion?
Does respecting evolution make you anti-religion?
Pal, I was never an "A" student in science, but I can still remember, nearly 50 years later, learning the difference between a scientific fact = confirmed observation, hypothesis = an unconfirmed explanation and theory = a confirmed explanation of the data.
Abiogenesis is neither observed fact nor confirmed theory.
It is an unconfirmed hypothesis, and just one of several that have been proposed.
Most of these are related and involve which exact conditions are likely to have been ideal for the earliest pre-life.
But panspermia is one hypothesis, and so would be "Intelligent Design" if it were ever actually expressed in scientific terms -- which so far as I've seen, it has never been.
So "Intelligent Design" has never even achieved the status of "unconfirmed hypothesis."
That means it cannot be studied, cannot be tested scientifically and cannot be confirmed or falsified.
Which means it's not science, and has no place in science classes.
The difference is, I've answered all of your questions, while you've answered none of mine.
Definitions of words like "science" and "species" are extraordinarily important in any discussions like these.
Indeed, once we understand that "science" by definition cannot include non-natural explanations and "species" are merely artificial categories somewhere between "breeds" and "genera", then a lot of the fog of debate can begin to dissipate.
One does not "believe" in a scientific hypothesis or theory in the same sense that one might believe in, say, the Nicean Creed.
When I was a young man, there were two major hypotheses "out there" -- of which the "Big Bang" was one, and the other was called "steady state", proposed by someone named Hoyle, if I remember correctly.
These days you hear nothing about the old "steady state" hypothesis, and all the discussion focuses on the "Big Bang."
Today the Big Bang is more than just another hypothesis.
It is a confirmed theory -- which does not mean it's necessarily true, far less that it is "Truth".
But it means that some observations predicted by the theory have been confirmed.
These include the ever-expanding Universe and Universe's background radiation.
And please understand, what every confirmation of a theory like the Big Bang does is make it increasingly difficult for some other competing hypothesis to be taken seriously, much less widely accepted.
But if we assume that the Big Bang is true, then it seems to me to rather well fit into the descriptions we find in the first chapter of Genesis.
And that is something I believe in.
That is a lie. At the outset of this discussion, you asked for my definition of "species." I provided you my definition of it. In error, I presumed it was to establish a common ground for our discussion, but when I asked you to provide your definition for a term for that very reason, I received a snide, snotty reply impugning my ability to google definitions. Thanks but no thanks. If I really wanted such childish dialog, I'd stroll down to the playground down the block and get the same level of discourse.
I asked about your thoughts on the big bang or the origin of the natural universe as we now know it...you've thus far declined to answer that, but since your definition of science hinges on separating that which is "natural" from that which is not, it seems such definitions would be in order.
500 years ago there were many on this earth who attributed solar and lunar eclipses to supernatural causes, based on what was known at the time. We now know that there are very certain "natural" and explicable causes for them. To think that in our present day, all knowledge is known is the ultimate vanity. I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence, 500 years from now (or 100, for that matter) folks will look back on us as being backward and archaic because of our theories and the limits of our knowledge.
To exclude the possibility that there are natural causes which we simply do not understand and therefore write off and dismiss as "supernatural," is not IMHO, the route to discovery. You start with the premise that all natural causes are already known and understood and all events will sooner or later, be explained within those parameters.
I simply beg to differ.
If you then, believe in a Theistic Creator, what would be more "natural" than the source of all nature?
Calm down, or I'll go back and quote for you the facts which make it true.
Joe 6-pack: "I received a snide, snotty reply impugning my ability to google definitions..."
So why ask for a definition of the word "science"?
It's readily available, and I go by standard definitions.
The issue on the word "species" is important because the "Intelligent Design" folks typically get all confused between the scientific definition of "species" and the biblical word "kinds".
So I asked for your definition, to see if that would be a factor here.
Joe 6-pack: "You start with the premise that all natural causes are already known and understood and all events will sooner or later, be explained within those parameters."
I do no such thing.
I've merely tried to explain the science of evolution to the best of my ability, with special focus on what is fact, what is theory and what is mere hypothesis.
No doubt, in generations to come there will be more Newtons and Einsteins, and they will look at the old data with new eyes and propose new theories the rest of us just couldn't see.
But since we can't predict what those will be, I guess we'll just have to wait until they arrive, right?
Joe 6-pack: "I asked about your thoughts on the big bang or the origin of the natural universe as we now know it...you've thus far declined to answer that, but since your definition of science hinges on separating that which is "natural" from that which is not, it seems such definitions would be in order."
Most Christian churches teach what is called "theistic evolutionism", meaning God created and manages evolution in order to produce what we see today, especially human beings.
And that is also my belief.
But science as science cannot speak to those ideas because they are outside the realm of methodological naturalism.
Of course, anyone might argue that this tells us the very limits of science itself, and with that I'd agree.
It also tells us why science is not just another religion, and our religion is not science.
Correct. Thanks for making my point.
I note that evolutionists often ask others what the word "species" means. Ususally they do so after they have blathered on about the origin of species at length, as if they knew what they were talking about. And then they say there's really no such thing as species, or challenge the weary listener to define "species" for them.
As a "weary listener", you may have missed the point of any discussion about "species" or "kind".
But if you're interested in the subject, you might want some coffee to wake you up before "listening" further... ;-)
The biblical word is translated as "kind" and is associated by our ID/Creationists with the scientific term: "species".
And this word then becomes the IDers "line in the sand" marking their insistence on a sharp distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".
In the minds of ID/creationists, "micro-evolution" is A-OK with them, because it does not violate the borders between biblical "kinds" or scientific "species".
Any species, they say, can "adapt" to new conditions through modifications and "natural selection," but no species can be allowed to "evolve" into some other species, because that would violate its "kind".
So, it is important to learn from IDers just what they mean by "kind" or "species" -- in other words, how far is micro-evolution allowed to go before it violates their idea of "kind" or "species"?
And, of course, no ID/Creationist will answer the question, because it exposes the ludicrous base of their arguments.
That's because, in reality, all such words as "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genera", "order", "family", etc., are strictly scientific "constructs" intended to help us understand what's going on in nature.
Such words are not "laws" which can't be violated.
In reality, what happens is that breeds and sub-species are sometimes separated from their main populations and evolve separately over time to the point where they can no longer interbreed with their original populations.
Then scientists call them a separate "species".
And that's all there is to it.
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.