Dr. Bakker,
What are your thoughts on the discoveries Dr. Mary Schweitzer has made of blood cells, intact proteins, and DNA in dinosaur bones vis-a-vis the claims of biochemists that even collagen completely breaks down in under 3Ma and DNA in a maximum of 6.83Ma?
I hear over and over that “Evolution is a fact”, but to quote the great philosopher Inigo Montoya, You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means! Evolution is a framework for understanding what we see in the world. The *facts* are the data we observe, which are then interpreted in that framework. Creationists use a different framework to interpret those facts.
As a molecular biologist, I use Evolution a lot. It is very useful in writing grants; committees like to see an Evolutionary spin. It's also critical for being published, for the same reason. In each case, its use is entirely ad-hoc. The actual hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions are based on repeatable and observable phenomena. This is standard operating procedure; however, one does not discuss such things. One's career is on the line.
Which brings me to the religion vs science shenanigans: if you call Evolution “science”, then attack me when I call into question certain assumptions or conclusions drawn, you demonstrate that it is much more than science, but in fact has become a religion unto itself. You have become one of the Faithful, defending the True Faith from blasphemers and heretics.
Anyone seriously interested in whether the “other side” has any real arguments to make should take a look at http://www.creation.com./
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Bakker, What are your thoughts on the discoveries Dr. Mary Schweitzer has made of blood cells, intact proteins, and DNA in dinosaur bones vis-a-vis the claims of biochemists that even collagen completely breaks down in under 3Ma and DNA in a maximum of 6.83Ma?
I hear over and over that “Evolution is a fact”, but to quote the great philosopher Inigo Montoya, You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means! Evolution is a framework for understanding what we see in the world. The *facts* are the data we observe, which are then interpreted in that framework. Creationists use a different framework to interpret those facts. As a molecular biologist, I use Evolution a lot. It is very useful in writing grants; committees like to see an Evolutionary spin. It's also critical for being published, for the same reason. In each case, its use is entirely ad-hoc. The actual hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions are based on repeatable and observable phenomena. This is standard operating procedure; however, one does not discuss such things. One's career is on the line. Which brings me to the religion vs science shenanigans: if you call Evolution “science”, then attack me when I call into question certain assumptions or conclusions drawn, you demonstrate that it is much more than science, but in fact has become a religion unto itself. You have become one of the Faithful, defending the True Faith from blasphemers and heretics. Anyone seriously interested in whether the “other side” has any real arguments to make should take a look at http://www.creation.com./