HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 31, 2005 To those that know, Mac's article about evolution proves the very points that he's trying to defend. For example, he comes from the angle that Christians which share his views are not in fact ignorant, yet his statements about evolution demonstrate nothing more than ignorance in the matters of the science involved. Ignorance isn't a bad word – it simply means a lack of knowledge. I'm not insulting Mac when I say this. Here are some facts: many articles are written about evolution at UK. Evolution is turning into a hot-political issue. Conservatives, for the most part here at UK (with a few notable exceptions), defend Intelligent Design/Creationism and/or give it a free pass (perhaps to appease the Christian Right folk in the Republican party?) Given such a hot topic defended by Conservatives, why do so few Conservatives know next to nothing about evolution? The Republican party was once thought of as the “smart” party – those days are over, folks. Mac's first error is the most basic and the most obvious: “…and
they have doubts about the theory of evolution…” as do
many scientists
and non-Christian philosophers and anyone else who
knows the meaning of
the word “theory”.
Factually wrong and highly misleading - what does “many scientists” mean? As a percentage of all scientists, the number rejecting evolution represent a fart in a tornado. You can find as many people that doubt we went to the moon, or that belong to the flat-Earth-society. This is a persistent, easily debunked, myth. As far as science is concerned, there is no controversy. The major parts of evolution (that life changes slowly over time, that all life is related) are all but accepted as law or as principles, and the theory will likely be branded as such at some future point. That life evolves is part of the very modern definition of life itself. I've used this example before, but one reason that rocks are not alive is because they cannot evolve. The word “theory” in a scientific sense has a different definition. I may have a theory about what happened to Diana in that tunnel in France, or what in the hell is wrong with Michael Jackson, but these are not scientific theories. Scientific theories explain facts, so the statement, “evolution is a theory, not a fact” is meaningless gibberish, something like, “milk is a cow, not a chainsaw”. Scientific theories need three basic things:
The first is obvious and evolution has a mountain that grows daily. The second is crucial. Darwin knew nothing about DNA, but DNA confirmed many of the theory's predictions. Evolution predicted that whales came from land animals instead of having been put into the oceans as sea-creature-like mammals directly. We've found evidence to validate this prediction, transitional fossils “between” land mammals and whales, we can see vestigial leg bones in whales, we can compare whale DNA to land mammal DNA and plot how far apart in a hereditary sense they are, a time period where no sea-mammal fossils exist in the rock strata because they had not yet evolved, and so on, and so forth, etc. The last bit is also crucial. I can proclaim that an invisible fairy sits on my shoulder. Try to disprove it – it's impossible. “I can't see it, you are wrong, your fairy does not exist!”. “Sure it does, you cannot see it because it is invisible!” Round and round we would go... Ideas that are not falsifiable have no business in science. Real theories put on the table that which needs to happen in order for them to be invalidated. This is a very powerful bullshit busting tool. I can provide a rather long list of that which we need to find which would debunk evolution. Mac also said this: Apes,
monkeys, chimpanzees and any other mammal even close
to the DNA of
humans are still existent. None of these have evolved
to higher forms
than what they are now and they will not. It may be
politically correct
to try to bring man down to the level of hogs but
saying there is any
commonality at all doesn’t make a bird from a reptile,
a whale from a
hippo or a human from a hog.
Factually, the implication is wrong. Mac has similar DNA to his mom, yet she may still be alive. Animals do not morph or “transform” into other animals – this is fundamentally not how evolution works. All vertebrates evolved from fish, but fish are still here and doing fine. The best way to understand this is to think about corn. Humans took certain strains of corn and domesticated them. We applied artificial selection without realizing it to make the corn we know and love today. This doesn't mean that all strains of wild corn should cease to exist. Some non-human apes evolved along a path which lead to humans, this doesn't mean that all genetically close apes must cease to exist. The humanoid-apes in our direct line happen to be extinct today, but some still existed along-side early humans. Philosophically, Mac reveals a common problem folks have with evolution. Evolution casts humans as mere animals – it breaks one of the great pillars of mythical provincial thought, as Carl Sagan said, that humans are special creatures, above other animals and distinct. DNA reveals that Mac is related to his mother, and that Mac is related to hogs – this kind of heredity-test doesn't magically end at the human-animal “boundary”. All life on Earth is, literally, one big family. This is accepted as fact. Here Mac brings in another sensitive issue: 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.
Is it clever to associate evolution with other hot-button social issues? Is it just ignorance? My personal take on abortion, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution, is that the notion of a fetus having a soul is a silly, magical, arbitrary, line. A sperm and an egg have everything needed to make a full-human; we merely lack the machinery to carry out the instructions. The womb is such a machine, but it's constructed to accept a fertilized egg, not just a sperm or an egg cell. Lets say that we make an artificial womb, something that's actually being thought about and worked on by science. Such a device could accept just a sperm or just an egg – is this surprising? Making a human from just one or the other is basically cloning. Once we have this tech, must we say that a sperm cell or an egg cell has a soul, with full human rights? If we do, then we must also grant human rights to blood cells or any other kind of cell that has DNA. There is no special magical line at the egg stage. Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. Masturbation, literally, in every true sense of the word, kills millions of potential humans. Better
still, evolutionists “MUST GIVE UP” their nonsensical
assertion that
there is no God.
“Evolutionist” isn't a word. Science has accepted evolution for over 100 years with not a shred, not an inkling, not a teeny-weeny, iddy-bitty sign, at all, whatsoever, of “dropping” the theory. Certain literal sects of Christianity in the USA take an interpretation of the Bible which “conflicts” with the scientific theory of evolution. If Mac belongs to such a sect, I suggest he find a new sect – there are plenty to choose from. Creationists are mostly Americans – most of the rest of the Christian world has no real issue with evolution. Remember also that the scientific theory of evolution does not deal with origins – it does not address the “first” life form. Naturally, being an atheist, I don't have any reason as of yet [no evidence, in other words] to believe that God put the first critter here, but in terms of just the theory of evolution, the notion that a higher power started the process does not conflict with evolutionary theory! Re-read that last sentence for full impact - God is compatible with evolution! Creationists will often lump the Big Bang, abiogensis (life from lifelessness) and evolution together and label this combination of independent theories, "anti-Christian". This is a deceitful tactic that serves no purpose but to brand Creationism as Christian propaganda rather than science. It doesn't help their “cause”, it merely exposes their shortcomings. Those sects which pit science against religion or science against American traditions are not only dishonest, but dangerous. Science is the foundation of our strength. Science is part of our tradition! Can the Amish defend us against biological weapons or the next flu pandemic? We can't afford to be this ignorant about the most basic science in the 21st century in a nation wholly dependent on science and technology. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ This is my second foray into the UK writing discordia. This time around, I want to be a tad more raw - maybe a bit edgier (does that sound "art-see"?) Maybe I'll address even more issues that most Americans consider taboo... About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@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). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
