HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 23, 2006 Nothing irks me faster than articles against evolution from those that don't grasp the basic concepts involved. I've never read such an article about the theory from a writer who actually understood it. Dr. Dino is a well known “Creationist expert” out there, I've chatted with several that have said, “I've learned a lot from him”, and it makes me sigh. For those looking for someone to tell them that not accepting evolution is OK, there is a nice market available...but is that real research? Along similar lines, the recent back-and-forth about “boring” articles makes me think that many reading this will say, “Doh! Science! Don't know, don't care – NEXT!” Yet, many of the same also fast-forward the science news that's out there, the VAST amount of science news covered by many credible Internet sites - just pass it right on up. Many mainstream news outlets have daily science sections though they usually aren't covered much on air [unless the story is REALLY sensationalist, water on Mars for example, with the obligatory, "possibility for alien life!" tacked on] and of course there are tons of dedicated science-news sites. Not a week goes by that there isn't a rather significant evolution-related discovery or advance. Recently, evidence was found which suggests that viruses may have been key in evolution early-on, and in a somewhat related project, they've simulated an entire virus (a biological virus, not a malicious piece of computer software), down to the atom. Viruses are quasi-life forms so depending on how one looks at this, mankind may have just created the first true artificial life. Did you, the reader, know that pharmaceutical companies and many others use natural-selection techniques to find drugs? To write computer software? To teach robots to walk? Computer code can evolve, I've played with this myself. Even mainstream types that don't read “boring” science news articles or UK articles know that Americans are lacking in science knowledge compared to other Western/modern countries. What most may not realize is that only in America is Creation really an issue. Of course there's a connection here. There are least two other UK writers that will think, should they read this, that Fred is afraid once again that the religious are out to get him, lol, but it's not nearly so simple. Evolution is now an official wedge issue. McCain said he's for teaching ID, Delay has linked the teaching of evolution to violence and school shootings, and in many areas, this is becoming a really hot issue. It's been building for some time now. So, even if I didn't have a certain preoccupation with religions and their negative influence in America as I see it, that alone would be a valid reason to voice my opinion on the matter. But I can't just leave it there. America is also showing signs of declining as a world-leader in science and technology. Combine that with the realization that most Americans are neither educated nor interested and you have a recipe for a very bad trend indeed. Two recent columns were written about evolution taking the “anti” stance, both by authors which have shown their credibility at writing good pieces in the past; that irony is pretty much the sad point of this piece. One mentioned indirect “evidence” for intelligent design. The evidence offered came in the form of letters written in to a magazine from someone seemingly disgruntled with the theory. Alas, the concepts covered were incorrect. All animals are species. There are no “in between” species. A fossil that we call transitional was a creature in its own right. A seal is kind of halfway between a land mammal and a sea mammal and a fossil of one might, in a few million years, be labeled “transitional”, but it's a fully-functioning, real, animal. There are no critters with half-formed flippers or legs walking about. It also linked abiogensis with evolution. The former covers the origin of life, the latter, how life changed once it took hold. Most of the Creationist fud out there attacks abiogensis and not evolution, two different scientific theories. In either case, a scientific alternative is never provided by that crowd. There are several competing theories for abiogensis actually, with varying acceptance and evidence. One involves the notion that life was brought here from elsewhere on comets – this has been written about rather well several times since I've been at UK. Evolution, however, has no competing theory, no alternative scientific view. Finally, it first mis-characterized fossil evidence and then failed to mention that the very best evidence for evolution is not in fact about fossils, though fossils certainly don't take anything away from the theory. It ended by basically suggesting that a “gap” in knowledge is indirect evidence for design. Let's play Devils advocate and assume that evolution is a load of crap and that all of these gaps exist – that still isn't evidence for design. On the contrary, we are loaded with examples of very poor design – maybe IDD would be a better “theory”: Intelligent Drunk Design, for it certainly seems that much of life was designed in a rigged, less-than-efficient, haphazard, manner. It sort of reminds me of a friend that bought a trailer in the Poconos. He gradually built a house around the trailer and now, there is almost nothing of the trailer left. The odd and slow formation of the house shows, however. Take our eyes, for example: blood vessels and such are between the lens and the retina, interfering with vision. No one would design such a flawed system – we certainly wouldn't. In video cameras, we put the circuitry and wires BEHIND or to the side of the lens, obviously. There are vast lists of such things... Another article started by calling other views of how life diversified, “theories”, which is of course an incorrect assessment. Evolution is the only theory we have right now which covers speciation. ID/Creation isn't a scientific theory. National Geographic can say it better than I can, Was Darwin Wrong?: Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the [b]origin of adaptation[/b] [not the origin of life], complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, [b]and unaware of the overwhelming evidence[/b], you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. Evolution isn't controversial in scientific circles. It's a fact and is being used to understand how the bird flu may soon evolve to transmit from human to human directly and how we can defeat AIDS and cancer. Does anyone advocate forcing ITT to put stickers such as these on their textbooks in their electrical engineering classes, “Electromagnetism is a theory, not a fact!”? The same writer also used the sarcastic “we evolved from fish” bit. What is the significance, I wonder? Is it that fish are slimy or squirmy or very non-human like? We did evolve from fish - so did elephants and snakes and vultures and pygmy marmosets and t-rex. We also evolved from reptiles and amphibians and a host of other creatures. If one wants to make evolution seem negative or non-human, surely one can come up with something less human and even more slimy than a fish. Let's use pond-scum, I haven't heard that one in a long time! That really degrades us, doesn't it? We evolved from the green crap that floats on dirty water! Yeah! ;) Every common myth about evolution has a straightforward answer. Animals don't transform or morph into other animals, we have observed evolution (both micro AND macro), we have transitional fossils, etc. I've written articles explaining some of those in depth before, but that's not the point of this article. The point of this article is to vent a little rage, I admit. ;) If I write a serious article about Hillary, saying that she won't make a good candidate because her ankles are too thick, I'd be laughed at for having such a ridiculous sense of politics. Let's apply that same kind of thought process to evolution. Why does evolution get a free pass? I don't follow basketball so I wouldn't attempt to write a piece about March Madness and expect to be taken seriously. A simple Google search can answer most common evolution questions. One should ask oneself, “if I have a damned good reason why evolution just has to be wrong, why would most scientists like the theory so much?”. Chances are, your question is simply a misunderstanding. I highly recommend talkorigins.org, they have a very nice, easy to read, FAQ, and have sections which get into evolution as little or as deeply as you'd ever want. And if one really wants to have fun, one should research just why it is that Creation is an issue in America but not elsewhere. Do most people know this? Did you? Follow the money, make the connections, see which political parties and groups benefit, etc. Which group invented the slogan, “Teach the controversy!”, (which actually means, “Invent the controversy!”), and why? If inquiring minds want to know, inquiring minds should inquire ;) What are you afraid of? Finally, although evolution is a given, the philosophical implications are not. Some atheist scientists (Richard Dawkins for example), are famous for suggesting that evolution is a religion-killer. Ironically enough, American fundamentalist Christian types agree with him ;) Real research on the matter, however, would lead one to an adversary of Dawkins. They've had a public debate for years about the matter. The other chap thinks that religion and science operate in two different realms, more or less, and they are rather compatible. Most theists in the world think this way as well. Personally, I tend to agree more with Dawkins in general because I see the world in a similar way, but my personal philosophy is irrelevant to the facts about evolution. I will say this, however: if you belong to a fundamental American Christian sect which bases its validity, in part, on the negation of evolution, then you've all but proved your religion incorrect and you may as well become an atheist ;) We'd love to have you – [joke]email me and I'll send you the recipe for the monthly urine and blood soup that Satan requires us to consume [/joke]. ------------ 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/ 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@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ 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). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
