Darwin's Doubt

Never smoked a thing in my life, but these brownies are damn tasty.

 

Y_F for some reason has decided to troll the board on issues that weren't that big a deal to him as he has ever professed before. Such as religious or gay issues. So beware.

 

Not at all.

I thought it was an interesting subject. Even in terms of Intelligent Design, I think the author probably does a better job at introducing/explaining/defending the subject than most.

I guess I'm just as surprised that some people get their back up at the thought of questioning Darwin as black dude with pompano is at the thought of folks using the term "Darwinist" without proper deference. (And, for the record, I don't see how it could be described as a pejorative in the excerpt.)

Plus, I figured I'd get points for starting a conversation by referencing a source other than the Times.

 

You know why that is. It's because "questioning Darwin" is a euphemism for "replacing the theory of evolution with creationism."

And here is the portion of your Stephen Meyer, PhD, character's article that makes my head want to explode:

"Meyer writes about the complex history of new life forms in an easy to understand narrative style. He takes the reader on a journey from Darwin to today while trying to discover the best explanation for how the first groups of animals arose. He shows, quite persuasively, that Darwinian mechanisms don’t have the power to do the job."

For the 1,000,000th time: Darwin made no claim to explaining the origin of life, i.e. "how the first groups of animals arose." He never claimed that his "mechanisms don't have the power to do the job," nor do his followers, who include, oh, every real scientist ever, make that claim.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. It never has been. It never will be. They are not the same thing. It's a sleight of hand that creationist zealots shoehorn into pieces like this in order to discredit the theory of evolution, which, for the 1,000,001st time, has nothing to do with the origin of life. Nada.

 

For some/many it is (though not necessarily with "Creationism"). That's still not a good enough reason for trying to shut down discussion on the subject, which some would prefer to do.

It's cowardly, and we see the same thing happening with subjects like global warming/climate change. Folks don't want to defend these theories, and instead seek to demonize/discredit folks who question the theory, rather than defend/discuss.

I don't disagree with you. And you're surely right about the understanding of scientists.

But, I'd still say that the average joe on the street does not understand this, and thinks Darwin did explain all of this.

Now, maybe that's an easy strawman for the author to tear apart, but he's not solely responsible for building the strawman.

 

We need a senior thesis to discredit evolution, much like the poster who used a senior thesis in his attempt to debunk climate change.

 

No one should have to waste even a second of time defending evolution against creationists. That's not "shutting down discussion." That's "ignoring idiots."

 

Is it some big news flash that the average joe on the street doesn't understand a complex scientific topic? I'm just not following you here. The fact that my bartender may think that Darwin nailed it all on the first try does not seem, to me, to be an opening to invite creationism into the serious scientific discussion. Honestly, who is shutting anything down, as you allege? There is a large army of evolutionary biologists building upon Darwin's theory, testing it, tweaking it, reshuffling the furniture. Other than the guy manning the cash register at Sears or the woman who puts the carnitas on my Chipotle, who exactly is shutting down this inquiry into evolutionary theory?

 

The ever-evolving flu virus would like a word with you.

 

I wonder if any Second Amendment absolutists ever do this. Or is it just godless liberal scientists?

 

I don't think the author is trying to debunk or discredit the theory of evolution.

Darwin himself expected others to come along and complete his work. Now, maybe not enough time has passed for this to happen. Or, maybe it can't be done.

I think that the author thought that it was worth exploring. I think that he's writing for a mass audience. And, rather than trying to discredit Darwin, he's trying to show that Intelligent Design and Evolution are not incompatible.

Now, if you want to discredit or Intelligent Design, that's fine. But falling back on Darwin alone won't do it.