A commentor named "Dave" neatly deals with Mr Riddle's list of 700 "scientists" by referencing the Steve Project, in which a greater number of scientists, all named Steve, assert their support for evolution. Mr Riddle's post is full of other logical flaws, straw men, and confused understanding of science.
I don't have a "blind faith" in the theory of natural selection to explain evolution. It simply is the theory that best explains the observed facts. My point that inferior theories don't deserve equal treatment is not intellectual arrogance. It is simply how science works. Would you have it any other way? Do you want science to adopt some kind of political correctness, whereby every theory, no matter how unsatisfactory, gets respect and equal treatment in the textbooks?
Mr Riddle's post is full of misconceptions about how science works. He presents a strawman, starting with his title "Darwinian Dogma" that is simply not factual.
That a theory is rejected is not proof that scientists are not open to inquiry. Mr Riddle's implication otherwise is flawed logic. Scientists don't claim evolution (or anything in science) as Truth with a capital T. Scientific theories are always put to the test. Freud's theories, once well established, are now largely dismissed because of that. Science advances. There was probably no theory more established and more trusted than Newton's theory of universal gravitation... until Einstein came along. And today theoretical physicists are busy trying to supplant Einstein.
Scientists know that Darwin's theory of natural selection is not writ in stone. It's been tested and refined for over a century. There are still many challenges needing answers. Perhaps the biggest is how life began. Darwin's theory explains how life evolves, but it doesn't explain how it began. Mr Riddle is welcome to join the exciting effort to answer that question. But just because scientists reject his preferred answer, creationism, does not mean science is closed to inquiry. It just means that creationism falls short as a scientific explanation. Sorry.
1 comment:
A Dallas Blog reader, Chris J Martin, claims there are "numerous examples in the biological world of occurrences which cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution." I know of numerous examples where the actual sequence of evolutionary events hasn't been worked out, but nothing yet has been found that is theoretically impossible to explain. Wings and eyeballs and bacterial flagella are no exceptions. As scientists take the time to investigate, evolutionary intermediate precursor states are being identified for these.
Contrary to Mr Pauken's claim, I didn't attack the messenger. I talked about "crackpot ideas", not people themselves being crackpots. Many of the proponents of creationism are educated people, sincere people, even nice people. Based on his photo, Mr Riddle looks to be a very earnest young man. Still, I reject his pseudo-scientific theory of creationism.
The Indiana state legislature once considered a state law to redefine pi as exactly equal to 3.2 because using the irrational number 3.14159... was just too impractical. I'm sure the legislators were fine and upstanding people, but their idea was crackpot and it failed to pass. Politely declining to call crackpot ideas what they are, crackpot ideas, does no one any favors, certainly not the advancement of science.
I didn't say all non-Darwinian ideas are crackpot ideas. How could I? Not everything has been invented yet. Maybe someday, someone will come up with an alternative theory that explains the diversity of life on earth equally well or better than natural selection. But for now, no other theory comes close, creationism included.
And wherever did Mr Martin get the idea that I am not for free speech and an open exchange of ideas? Science requires that. Scientists wouldn't have it any other way. Rejection of crackpot ideas does not mean science is not open to free speech or free inquiry. It just means that science has considered some ideas and found them wanting.
Scientists are used to the routine. It happens all the time. It's what science is all about. Scientists constantly come up with hypotheses, test them, reject the ones found wanting, and devise new hypotheses. Creationism is just one more idea that's been found wanting. Real scientists try again. Maybe next time you'll find an idea that works. Good luck.
Post a Comment