It is fantastic from my point of view because it is supremely easy (and therefore not too time consuming) to shit all over it.
The latest entry is by GilDogen, a man (?) who is clearly lacking of some fairly important sections of grey matter, and a good dollop of logic.
He starts off by highlighting his credentials to pick apart the theory of evolution: He is in research (good start) and development(...) in the aerospace industry.
Well renowned for producing some of the finest evolutionary biologists of the past 100 years....hmm. All in all not a great start. He then jabbers on for a while about LS-DYNA (an apparently AWESOME computer programme).
The problem is the whole time he is writing you can see what's coming, you can see where he is trying to drag this and you can see how badly he is going to fall. Car-crash podcasting at it's best. He then comes out with a corker:
Where is such a standard of empirical validation for Darwinian "scientists"?
Which is so vacuous a statement as to be rendered nonsensical. For a start there are no "Darwinian" scientists. There are scientists who accept the theory of evolution, proposed by Darwin and Wallace (who incidentally never seems to get the I.D. crowd angered). But there are not Darwinian scientists,
The second point, really the main point here, is the total, abject rejection of all the evidence dating back 3.5 billion years up until the present day.
A search on Web of Science for "Evolution" within science and technology comes up with...90,069 references. And yes I admit that not all of them will be talking about evolution and the evidence for it, but I would hazard a guess the majority will. Filling in holes here and there, describing new transitional fossils.
In fact there are probably hundreds of thousands of papers I have missed that really highlight the evidence, from the fossil record, and from phylogenetic analysis.
The evidence for evolution is exactly infinitely greater than the evidence for creationism (there being none).
Apparently evolutionary biologists also invent weasel computer programmes.
The fact that I have no fucking clue what a weasel computer programme is doesn't stop me being annoyed about it.
He continues with some cracking one liners:
I under stand it (evolutionary theory) just fine, and it's logically, mathematically and empirically totally vacuous.
Hmm...
And then this, the coupe de gras:
The answer is: Darwinism is pseudoscience. It has some measure of truth (random mutations and natural selection can do some stuff)...
I think, and I admit I COULD be wrong, but I don't think I am, that he might have just made a bit of a blunder. The blunder I am referring to here is of course that he has somewhat countered the argument he made earlier that evolution is logically vacuous etc by admitting it does work....interesting.
He finishes with the conclusion that the standard of evidence for evolution would be laughed at by any legitimate scientist.
Clearly he missed the memo on this, for instance this paper, signed by 38 Nobel laureates in 2005 bashing intelligent design into the ground:
THE ELIE WIESEL FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY
NOBEL LAUREATES INITIATIVE
September 9, 2005 TO: Kansas State Board of Education
We, Nobel Laureates, are writing in defense of science. We reject efforts by the proponents of so-called “intelligent design” to politicize scientific inquiry and urge the Kansas State Board of Education to maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum and science standard in the State of Kansas.
The United States has come a long way since John T. Scopes was convicted for teaching the theory of evolution 80 years ago. We are, therefore, troubled that Darwinism was described as “dangerous dogma” at one of your hearings. We are also concerned by the Board’s recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution.
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.
Differences exist between scientific and spiritual world views, but there is no need to blur the distinction between the two. Nor is there need for conflict between the theory of evolution and religious faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Neither should feel threatened by the other.
When it meets in October, 2005, we urge the Kansas State Board of Education to vote against the latest draft of standards, which propose including intelligent design in academic curriculum.
Sincerely,
Alexei A. Abrikosov Nobel Prize, Physics (2003)
Richard Axel Nobel Prize, Medicine (2004)
Günter Blobel Nobel Prize, Medicine (1999)
Linda B. Buck Nobel Prize, Medicine (2004)
Aaron Ciechanover Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2004)
Mairead Corrigan Maguire Nobel Prize, Peace (1976)Robert F. Curl, Jr. Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1996)
John B. Fenn Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2002)
Clive W.J. Granger Nobel Prize, Economics (2003)
David J. Gross Nobel Prize, Physics (2004)
Leland H. Hartwell Nobel Prize, Medicine (2001)
Herbert A. Hauptman Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1985)
Dudley R. Herschbach Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1986)
Avram Hershko Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2004)
Roald Hoffmann Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1981)
H. Robert Horvitz Nobel Prize, Medicine (2002)
Eric R. Kandel Nobel Prize, Medicine (2000)
Wolfgang Ketterle Nobel Prize, Physics (2001)
Aaron Klug Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1982)
Sir Harold Kroto Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1996)
Anthony J. Leggett Nobel Prize, Physics (2003)
Jean-Marie Lehn Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1987)
Ferid Murad Nobel Prize, Medicine (1998)
Erwin Neher Nobel Prize, Medicine (1991)
Sir Paul Nurse Nobel Prize, Medicine (2001)
Stanley B. Prusiner Nobel Prize, Medicine (1997)
Irwin Rose Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2004)
K. Barry Sharpless Nobel Prize, Chemistry (2001)
Horst L. Störmer Nobel Prize, Physics (1998)
Gerardus ’ t Hooft Nobel Prize, Physics (1999)
Daniel C. Tsui Nobel Prize, Physics (1998)
Harold E. V armus Nobel Prize, Medicine (1989)
John E. Walker Nobel Prize, Chemistry (1997)
Carl E. Wieman Nobel Prize, Physics (2001)
Elie Wiesel Nobel Prize, Peace (1986)
Frank Wilczek Nobel Prize, Physics (2004)
Jody Williams Nobel Prize, Peace (1997)
Betty Williams Nobel Prize, Peace (1976)
Or the 2009 poll by PEW suggesting that 87% of scientists accept that humans evolved from an ancestor (a surprisingly low number, but still you would have to say, a majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment