HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 31, 2005 Mr. McCrae: Re: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/05dec/article312.html Although your entire argument seems somewhat scatter-brained and demonstrates only a simple-minded, "pop-culture" understanding of the methods of true scientific inquiry, here is the section where you really vomited all over yourself: --------------- "What is the human application of creating a “speciation of fruit flies”? Do we actually need a new species of fruit fly? Under Natural Selection, couldn’t a fruit fly have naturally evolved? Why did scientists have to interfere for 30 generations to create a new species except to attempt to muddy the evolutional waters of human science? If I follow the logic of the pro-abortionist, the stage-one embryonic development of a fetus of any species is nothing more than something that can be flushed. Not much of an argument for evolution if the evidence is that worthless." --------------- I couldn't help laughing out loud about the question you pose in the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph: "Do we actually need a new species of fruit fly?" LMAO…I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, McCrae, and assume you are simply being sarcastic instead of incredibly ignorant of why genetic research is performed in this fashion. I'll assume you understand that fruit fly lifespans are measured in hours, and therefore this insect is an ideal candidate for studying the effects of evolutionary processes that normally occur over many thousands of years. To misunderstand this and mistakenly assume that these genetic researchers are simply trying to create a new species of fruit fly -- and then to wonder why they simply couldn't let Natural Selection do it for them -- displays your monumental (and hilarious!) deficiency with regards to long-established scientific methods pioneered by some of the greatest minds in history, including Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, Galileo, Darwin, Descartes, Gauss, and Mendel. All of these great men believed in God in some fashion. All of them believed in the scientific method as well. Gregor Mendel was a religious MONK, fer chrissakes, and he virtually invented genetic science. What you don't seem to comprehend is that hard science WELCOMES challenges to its theories, in stark contrast to the claims of Intelligent Design which simply allow no room for debate, because ID is essentially a faith-based idea. Ideas are not science. Ideas must be subjected to scientific scrutiny to become more than just ideas. Science is not based in faith -- by definition. This is not because human scientists don't believe in God, but simply because the ID argument that "some Godlike entity is responsible for man's development" is not science at all, and cannot be proved or disproved with any experiment. Science welcomes with open arms ANYONE who can disprove or challenge existing theories using legitimate and controlled experimentation -- but just saying that "a God did it" is simply not of any scientific interest or validity whatsoever. It just bores the hell out of true scientists. I think you are seriously muddying your own waters by confusing religious faith with the scientific method of inquiry. Science is NOT claiming that evolution displaces the notion of a Creator. Science is just not CONCERNED with “ideas” about a Creator unless you can prove -- scientifically -- that they are valid. Would your math teacher give you full credit for simply putting down the correct answer without showing how you arrived at it? Would he simply accept your answer on faith? Absolutely not. If he did, he wouldn't be much of a math teacher -- just a score-totaling secretary who doesn't care if anybody cheats or doesn't really understand mathematical principles. Or maybe he tunes in to Pat Robertson’s broadcasts on a regular basis… Okay. Sorry for that jab, but my belly still aches from laughing about your classic line “Do we NEED another species of fruit fly?” On to paragraph number two… LMFAO again. To pair up the ideas of abortion rights and evolution in the manner you did – and attempt to use a political issue to rebut a scientific argument – is not only one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read, it also demonstrates clearly that you are not really addressing evolution at all. A more unlikely pair I cannot imagine, unless you are talking about Billy Bob Thornton and Angelina Jolie. Since when did the term “Pro-Abortionist” imply that an advanced degree in Genetic Research has been obtained? Do you really think ANYBODY ON EARTH is using this naïve, childlike argument to refute evolutionary science other than yourself? Congratulations McCrae… I think you just gained entry into the Ron Lewis Windbag Award Competition for 2006… what do you think, Ron? (wink). ------------ About the author: Steve Dayton is a new guy who hasn't written his bio, yet... Email: stixus_steve@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
