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.'"
But there is one thing wrong with the theory. While experiments have proven that animals can adapt. There is no proof of one type of animal turning into another. No half way between example of any type of life. No skeleton of a half of this and a half of that.
Happy birthday Thursday Big D. I hope I am still pissing people off as much as you do over a hundred years after I am gone.
You know, I hate arguments like these because they are fundamentally flawed. What I am about to say is politically incorrect (but mathematically true) and if this offends you - piss off because it's the truth.
Many things in nature conform to the "normal", "bell" or "Gaussian" distribution curve, and that includes human intelligence. Makes sense that a few people will be extremely bereft of intelligence, a few people will be super-gifted, and most of us will be somewhere around the middle. That's statistics.
However when you look at scientists, most of us have graduate or postgraduate degrees. Most of us were always nerds, studied hard, passed the exams, etc. Most of us can be considered above average intelligence - for a given definition of intelligence (the ability to pass tests, work out problems, etc).
What does this mean? It means that if we're on the right side of the gauss curve, the majority of people are dumber than us because the 50% population mark is right on the "average" intelligence line (that's how bell curves work) and we are above average. Some are so extremely distanced from us (those on the "other" side of the curve, below the 50% mark) that we fail to understand that it is impossible that they will ever grasp even the simplest concepts. Not unlikely - impossible.
Now some people like the author think that by changing the words around they can help the less gifted half understand a key concept that for any scientist is really extremely basic, extremely obvious, and unquestionably accurate. This is not true. Darwin and Wallace deserve the credit for the work that they did. We scientists are supposed to be humble, but we delight in exalting the rare few in our field that rise above the rest and point something out that helps us greatly in our daily chore of understanding the universe. Frankly I don't CARE what creationists think. None of them are noteworthy scientists, none of them will ever get published in the magazines I read, and no one but other "less gifted" individuals will listen to the garbage they spit out.
I think that although it's very human to try to reach out and help those less fortunate, in this case it's a complete waste of time - as much a waste of time as it is for a Jehova's Witness to come knocking at my door to talk to me, a passionate atheist, about God. This time and energy (and paper, in the case of NY Times articles) would be far better used for something else than trying to enlighten the ignorant who are happy in their ignorance. The great thing about intelligence is that it's a hunger that needs to be fed. You don't have to FORCE someone to learn. If they are smart, they will want to learn all on their own. THOSE are the people we have to help - not the ones who refuse to listen.
Leave the damned language as it is - nothing is gained by changing the words used. Anyone who needs to understand CAN understand, as is. We've been doing ok for the past few generations. By changing the language all you do is take credit away from deserving scientists. No one is made smarter, and no "creationists" will drop their lunatic fantasies by taking the word "Darwin" out of evolution.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If you read darwins book he gives 2 conditions that have to be met before evolution can be true, each of which has been proven false. One a complete fossil record, two he thought cell were plasma but it has been proven that there are distinct complex machines with in the cell example maleon motor. Excuse the spelling. Lee Strobel has tried to prove evolution is correct and disprove Christianity. He was unable to and his studies are well documented. Also Dr. Del Tackett explains how the different scientist and their theory's are disproven time and time again. Here are link for those who would like to see the truth. http://www.thetruthproject.org/ http://leestrobel.com/
That's a very silly argument. But then, the whole discussion at this point is mostly silly. We don't have anywhere near the necessary data to prove or disprove either evolution or intelligent design. The problem though is that intelligent design can *never* be proved or disproved. Why? Because intelligent design assumes an all-powerful creator that has designed all kinds of intricate systems and things to very exact specifications. But if this designer/creator can do that... he/she can literally do *anything*... including building everything to look and behave exactly as though it had came about by evolution. In fact, if a being with such power exists, he could even continuously change anything and everything (including our own memories). It's a scary thought. And that ultimately I believe is why people are so polarized on the issue.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
oh, and for the others, be aware that the grand grand parent post start pro Darwinism and become pro ID the more it goes on, pulling a trick directly from Orwell's 1984.
It's ok, he's allowed to be a religionist and (probably) a christianist (I can make up words that suit me too). Few people will take him seriously since he doesn't really grasp the concepts he throws around anyway.
People who prefer fantasy worlds to real life seem to be getting less traction lately. Our species might still have a chance.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Nope, sorry, can't do it. You don't get off that easy.
Notwithstanding your vulgar debating skills, is there further evidence that that animal eventually became a lizard or some other transitional creature? On what basis do we assume that this creature evolved into something else? Must we conclude it evolved, or can we also reasonably say that this type of animal had legs and possibly gills + lungs from the beginning, and may have simply become extinct along with thousands of other species in the same period? We can't say either way, because we don't know without additional evidence, but if we actually consider the evidence presented in cellular biology, we would be less likely to conclude with certainty that this was a "transitionary fossil".
The failure of evolutionary theory is the logical leap required to believe, in the light of everything we now know about the complexity of the cell and DNA (that Darwin had no knowledge of when he devise his theories), that one species could actually make the leap to another. It is a statistical impossibility.
The narrative that drives evolutionary thought is that there is no God, we're all here by random chance, therefore evolution is true and this creature is a transitional creature. The issue is not the evidence, it is through what lens (i.e. worldview) we interpret that evidence.
If I were to believe that there is a God who created the universe and everything in it according to its kind as the Bible says, then I would reasonably conclude that this creature was created as it is and just so happened to become extinct. Again, worldview drives the interpretation.
Now, those who believe it is unreasonable to believe the Bible is true, on what do you base that belief? Have you actually read the entire Bible and studied its claims in detail as I have? If not, then please read the whole Bible, and also read books by Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel and James White and do your own research on their conclusions. Engage with the actual evidence objectively so you can make informed, unbiased conclusions.
Or, you can just reply "what an idiot" and prove your own bias and ignorance.
By 'recent' you mean the last 500 years... if not more.
While there have been specific instances, overall the Catholic church has been supportive of science. They understand that science can explain the world as God made it and can not, by definition, prove not disprove God.
The built the first modern observatory, and before it gets brought up, there where many other issues between the church and Galileo.
Now I don't want to apologize for the church, and I am not Catholic, but I think it's important for people to be as factual as possible in these discussions.
I mean, really they practice ritual cannibalism of there Zombie savior.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh, I don't think there's much risk of you or your kind ever "waking up"
Oh I'm awake... had to get to work eventually. I may have been up all night playing WOW and was a danger to myself and others on the road this morning but I'm awake.
My mighty reserve of Karma laughs at your attempts to mod me down.