Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
Paul Krugman thinks that Republicans are dumb, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. In the not-too-distant future he sees a Republican half-wit delivering his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the convention in grunts, beating his chest, and bopping his wife over the head with the a club as he drags her on to the stage by her hair.
Writing in The New York Times, Krugman says, “One of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge.
And, in a time of severe challenges – environmental, economic, and more – that’s a terrifying prospect.”
Terrifying indeed. What’s more frightening then the prospect of a bunch of underdeveloped orangutans with their finger on the nuclear button? But saying that Republicans are anti-science is about as accurate as saying that democrats are anti-religion, and one wonders which is more outrageous: the prospect of a primitive party of Republicans getting control of government, or a Nobel-prize winning columnist in one of the world’s most authoritative newspapers writing broad generalities about how they’re unlettered buffoons who hate learning and science.
What seems even more outrageous is the fact that Krugman’s ire was piqued by Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s comment that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”
I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990, I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world’s greatest evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex – then widely regarded as the leading evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Dawkins at Oxford that he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online; in that video, it can be seen that Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side, but actually loses the debate in a student vote. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.
What I learned from these debates, as well as from reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue.
This does not mean that evolution is not true or that the theory is without merit or evidence. It does, however, corroborate what Perry said. Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.
Indeed, Dawkins and the late and celebrated Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fiercely debated basic assumptions about evolution, with Gould arguing that the large gaps in the fossil record make a mockery of a theory of gradual evolution, which is why Gould advocated “punctuated equilibrium” – a variation on Darwinism in which evolution takes place in dramatic periods of change followed by long eons of stasis. Gould maintained this position precisely because, as Perry said, the theory of evolution has “some gaps in it” – in the case of the fossil record, quite literally.
No scientist has ever witnessed evolution directly; science itself says this is impossible given the vast amount of time needed for species to evolve.
Rather, evidence for evolution is found primarily in the fossil record, and evidence for natural selection stems from some famous contemporary observations. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which can produce light or dark offspring, were light in coloration.
However, with the rise in pollution during the Industrial Revolution, the lichens and trees against which the light-colored moths habitually hid from predators were darkened with soot, making the light-colored moths conspicuous to predatory birds and allowing the dark moths to survive.
A similar proof brought for natural selection is the Galapagos Finch, which Darwin theorized was originally a single species but over time changed very slowly in response to the demands of the environment.
For example, the large ground-finch had a big, powerful beak that seemed well-suited to cracking open seeds, while the vampire finch had a long, pointed beak, which allowed it to puncture the flesh of other birds and drink their blood. In each case, Darwin reasoned, beak shape had evolved over time to provide an adaptive advantage.
THE PROBLEM with both these observations is that they are manifestations of horizontal, rather than vertical, evolution, as they document how members of a species may change within the range of characteristics that they already possess. No new traits are generated. Vertical evolution, whereby natural selection can supposedly create entirely new structures, has yet to be directly observed and is thus a theory.
Other challenges remain regarding evolutionary theory, most notably the anthropic principle, which maintains that if the physical laws and constants governing our universe were even slightly different, we would not be here to notice it because the emergence of life could not have occurred.
The English cosmologist Sir Martin Rees argues in his book Just Six Numbers that the values of six numbers determine to a great degree many of the large- and small-scale properties of our universe, and if any of these were changed, even slightly, the universe might not exist at all.
The second number, epsilon, which is roughly .007, describes, roughly speaking, how durable matter is, because it tells us how much energy is required to separate an atom into its constituent particles. If epsilon were .006 – a difference of about 14% – the universe would consist entirely of hydrogen. No other elements would form, because the process of nuclear fusion could not occur. There would be no planets, very little light, no nebulae, no comets and certainly no life.
The value of epsilon is one of the most profound mysteries of the universe.
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his typically flamboyant way, said of it: “It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say ‘the hand of God wrote that number...’” Many leading scientists, like Francis Collins – described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time” – therefore believe that while evolution may indeed be an accurate theory regarding the rise of life, it still requires the guiding hand of a higher power in order to operate.
Indeed, Dawkins himself said in a famous interview with Ben Stein that the intelligent life in our universe may have come from “a higher intelligence” consisting of space aliens that seeded our planet with intelligent life.
IN THE final analysis, however, the biblical account of creation easily accommodates an evolutionary ascent, seeing as the narrative expressly relates that God created the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and finally human life forms in ascending order.
It would be wise of Krugman to remember that the very essence of science is to question, and that stifling doubt is a sin of which religion has been quite guilty in the past – one science should refrain from repeating in the present.
Perry's "just a theory" statement in itself should disqualify him from being President.
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven." As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
it's ALL theory.....DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......I dont know about evolution,,,,and neither does anyone else(except by theory),,,,BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY BEEN HERE THIS LONG,,,,,,INDIVIDUALLY.... but,,,,one thing we CAN agree on is the F'EN FUTURE IS COMING....and we could be dead(and WILL BE) in short order......DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Perry's "just a theory" statement in itself should disqualify him from being President.
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven." As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Your Welcome Graham. When you consider that 97% of human and chimp DNA are exactly the same, it leaves little doubt about a common ancestor.
NOTE: Unlike most humans, Graham's DNA for some reason, is 99% Chimp like.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet to me is just nonsense. Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact. Galileo got outvoted for a spell." -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry, expressing skepticism on global climate change at last night's presidential debate.
Galileo got outvoted for a spell??? Really??? The only people who questioned Galileo were the Catholic Church!
Roman Inquisition in 1633 sentenced Galileo on a grave suspicion of heresy. His heresy? The Sun is the center of the solar system, yea just like today, the governing bodies back then, just like some Conservatives today, are a little slow when it comes to keeping up with SCIENCE. As it turns out, Galileo was finally vindicated.
in 1992 the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing. 300 YEARS LATER!
Do ya think today's Conservatives will EVENTUALLY catch up to the science of Climate Change or Evolution??? It'll probably take another 300 years.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
It doesn't disqualify him for president, but it is the "wildcard" issue I predicted if Perry becomes the nominee. As far as Climate change, yes, it is changing, it always does. Just like the computer models the alarmists count on. Should we be greener? sure... Will it change the sea level rise that the models predict? not by much. Does bad news get more research dollars than good? absolutely.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
And box, like usual, your little cartoon is inaccurate. I can't name ONE person that suggested NOT teaching evolution because it was only a theory. It's actually just the opposite, left wingers don't want ANY OPPOSING THEORIES taught in school along side evolution. Ya see, science has it's own religiosity, they need to be the only "truth". The church of science would like nothing more than to be the God's of society.
And box, like usual, your little cartoon is inaccurate. I can't name ONE person that suggested NOT teaching evolution because it was only a theory. It's actually just the opposite, left wingers don't want ANY OPPOSING THEORIES taught in school along side evolution. Ya see, science has it's own religiosity, they need to be the only "truth". The church of science would like nothing more than to be the God's of society.
Cicero still doesn't get it.
The term "theory" and the term "Scientific Theory" have two very different meanings.
I could have a theory that the moon is made out of green cheese. I have no facts, no data, no reason to think that, but it is my theory.
To change my 'theory' into a 'Scientific Theory', I'd have to find some evidence of the moon being made from green cheese, then test that evidence, compile data to back up my 'theory' and submit my data for peer review.
All these steps have been done with the Scientific Theory of Evolution, and NONE have been done with the 'theory' of Creationism.
There is no data supporting creationism, no evidence of creationism, no compilation of data, no peer review... Creationism has the same validity as my theory that the moon is made from green cheese... it's just an opinion.
The only supporting data for Creationism is a religious book... not a science book. We are all free to accept the religious view if we wish, but there is no scientific evidence to support it.
To promote Creationism as if it were Science is with out any scientific evidence that it exists.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
A Yale University survey on Climate Change finds: ~ 34% of self-identified Tea Partiers said they believe global warming is real, ~ 53% of Republicans, ~ 71% of independents, ~ 78% of Democrats said they believe global warming is real.
The politics of the Tea Party has pushed Republican presidential candidates to the right on matters of science and energy. Republican candidates are now running as the 'Anti-Science Party'.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
From what I read Box the only thing that there is a consensus on is the fact that the climate/weather is changing but the jury is still out on the cause except for the Democrats who believe everything that happens with the weather is caused by man. Excellent sample of 809 people probably all attending Yale.
The politics of the Tea Party has pushed Republican presidential candidates to the right on matters of science and energy. Republican candidates are now running as the 'Anti-Science Party'.
I think you have it wrong, the Tea Party has no problem with opposing theories being taught in school, it's the state totalitarians that feel the MUST DICTATE and control thought and every aspect of education. MANDATING certain subjects be taught, and others NOT.
Tea Party folks that support Ron Paul are running against both the Democrat and Republican establishments. BOTH have ALWAYS run as the party of BIG GOVERNMENT and ANTI-FREEDOM.
I think you have it wrong, the Tea Party has no problem with opposing theories being taught in school, it's the state totalitarians that feel the MUST DICTATE and control thought and every aspect of education.
Tea Party folks that support Ron Paul are running against both the Democrat and Republican establishments. BOTH have ALWAYS run as the party of BIG GOVERNMENT and ANTI-FREEDOM.
I have no problem with "opposing theories" being taught in school either. There is no 'opposing Science theory' to evolution... just an opposing religious theory.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I have no problem with "opposing theories" being taught in school either. There is no 'opposing Science theory' to evolution... just an opposing religious theory.
Then teach it as philosophical theory. There, we found some common ground.
Then teach it as philosophical theory. There, we found some common ground.
Teach Science in a Science class. Use the best Scientific books and the latest knowledge. Teach Math in a Math class. Use the best Math books and the latest knowledge. If your school teaches religion, Teach Religion in a Religion class. Use the best Religious books and the latest knowledge. But, Don't do as some Conservatives would have us do and Teach Science with a Religious book.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
