Slashdot Mirror
Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live
Pickens writes "MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution — Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology, studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease. Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
This is why most biologist refer to Darwins theory plus all the addition thoughts of the last 150 year as neodarwinism
Darwins basic idea still stands so it doesn't seem illogical to use his name for the theory
Comment removed based on user account deletion
unfortunately i can't muster enough stamina to read all the statement form this AC, but if he whant an example of evolution he should read this
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
an article about an evolution of a new genetic trait in bacteria, and it is a reproducible experiment!
that perhaps prove evolution?
Lungfish? Manatees? Feathered dinosaurs? Egg-laying marsupials? Darwin's own Galapagos Finches? That argument is silly, because it glosses over the fact that these processes happen on a timescale we can't observe.
That might be because the USA is one of the largest Protestant-majority countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country). Catholics (and most of the groups which split from them prior to the Protestant Reformation) aren't fundamentalists. i.e. they don't take the Bible literally, seeing Genesis as symbolic rather than historical. This enables them to reconcile evolution (and other scientific principles) with their faith.
This also demonstrates that it is possible to be both religious and scientific.
DISCLAIMER: IAAC (I am a Catholic).
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Allow me to acquaint you with Pete Stark (D-CA-13). He's been openly out as an atheist since January 2007. In addition to Stark, there are ten other current members of Congress who decline to list their religion, opening the possibility that some of them are, at least, closet atheists/agnostics.
is not true. Nowhere in the oath of office is any god mentioned. Nearly all presidents have added a "so help me god" to the end of the oath, but it is not in the Constitution. Most presidents have sworn the oath on a Bible, but not all. Franklin Pierce, in addition to not using a Bible, didn't swear the oath, either -- he affirmed it. If you are suggesting that the president "has" to swear to god at the inauguration in the same way that he "has" to be religious to be elected, then I am with you, but your phrasing indicates that the swearing to god is more prescribed than that.
Rhapsody in Numbers
...they eventually figured out that stars work with nuclear processes...
There is also the fact that the sun's mass is not enough to gravitationally oppose the huge outward pressures generated by a thermonuclear reaction at the needed temperatures. Gravity is simply too weak to overcome the strong nuclear and electrical forces that would have to be present in such a thermonuclear reaction furnace.
What? Balancing the pressure equation of state is how we numerically predict the structure of the Sun in the first place. Where did you hear that?
Then there is the missing neutrino problem. From thermonuclear fusion experiments and bombs, we know what the production rate of associated neutrinos should be for the sun IF it were indeed powered by fusion, as theorized. However, the actual neutrino flux from the sun is only a tiny fraction of what should be measured if fusion were the energy source of the sun. At this point scientists really are back to square one in determining the power source of the sun and similar sized stars.
This was a problem before 10 or so years ago, though (a) the solution was guessed at 30 years ago, and (b) it's not a "tiny" fraction, it was about a third. Neutrinos change species. There is no more mystery
There is also radar evidence that the sun is not a big gas ball, but actually has a solid iron core, similar to the earth, surrounded by an atmosphere of seething plasma kept hot by an as yet unknown external electrical power grid, in the same way as a metal arc lamp here on earth. There is some evidence that the sun, along with other stars in the spiral arms of our galaxy, is part of a galactic scale electrical power distribution system powered from the center of our galaxy.
A solid iron core??? Where are you getting this stuff? The central density is around 15 times higher than iron! Chemical reactions cannot power the Sun at its current luminosity for billions of years. Can I recommend to you a nice introductory astronomy (science) book?
Although admittedly, it may be a flaw that we can learn to live with, is that it fails to answer the following: what happened, exactly, that caused non-replicating molecules to become replicating, and equally importantly, what caused large collections of such molecules in a single thing to progress from having a non-living state to being a living organism?
I find it somewhat ironic that we appear to understand and know more about the origins of the universe than we do about the existence of life on this planet.
The evidence for the origin of life on earth, whatever it may be, is a lot more fragile than the evidence for the origin of the universe. A couple billion years of geology and life destroyed most of the evidence. Some of it's still there, but the vast majority of it is gone forever.
I'd like to stress, though, that evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. The first life could have formed from chemicals in the early earth's oceans, been created by the Designer, left here by aliens, or drifted in on a comet. Doesn't matter. Evolution can't happen until life can replicate itself. It would certainly be nice to know how life came about, but it's not relevant to evolution.