About Me
- Name: Nick W.
- Location: Wisconsin, United States
Libertarian observations from within the Ivory Tower by an archivist, librarian and researcher.
Email me at
libertarian_librarian@hotmail.com
Worth a visit or two
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Ornery American
- Iraq the Model
- Dennis the Peasant
- Tim Blair
- James Lileks
- Views from the other side of the aisle
- Views from the XX side of genetics
Archives
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote
Monday, August 22, 2005
ID Update
So, upon further reflection, I suspect that the appeal of Intelligent Design for me is that it fits nicely with how I've always viewed creation: God set the whole thing in motion oh so many years ago, and evolution is the tool he used to bring us to where we are today. But, truthfully, there isn't a lot of science behind it, and-- at this point-- it should not be taught in public schools.
That said, I still think the controversy that has been generated by ID is a good thing for science. Science is something which thrives on controversy-- when folks REALLY want to prove something true, or false, is often when that 99% perspiration meets up with the 1% inspiration. Debate is healthy. Most scientists would agree with that.
Which is why this story is rather disturbing. Bear in mind, the guy, Sternberg, who's career has been damaged, perhaps irrevocably, did not write the article in favor of ID, and he has openly stated he doesn't even agree with the articles conclusions. But science is not, or at least should not be, in the business of sweeping alternative theories under the rug with a dismissive smirk and a elitist attitude. Yet, because he green-lighted the publication of the article in a relatively obscure science journal, Sternberg's life will never be the same.
So, the question is-- if evolution is so solid a theory, so widely accepted, and so elegant a solution to the problem of species diversity, and I think it is all of those things, why do many of its proponents react to any criticism or questioning of its tenets with such vehemence and vitriol? Honestly, the critics of ID wail and bemoan the religious substrates of the ID theory-- and justifiably so-- but do they not see that reactions like the one against Sternberg paint them as just another sect of religious fanatics of the type they proport to despise?
That said, I still think the controversy that has been generated by ID is a good thing for science. Science is something which thrives on controversy-- when folks REALLY want to prove something true, or false, is often when that 99% perspiration meets up with the 1% inspiration. Debate is healthy. Most scientists would agree with that.
Which is why this story is rather disturbing. Bear in mind, the guy, Sternberg, who's career has been damaged, perhaps irrevocably, did not write the article in favor of ID, and he has openly stated he doesn't even agree with the articles conclusions. But science is not, or at least should not be, in the business of sweeping alternative theories under the rug with a dismissive smirk and a elitist attitude. Yet, because he green-lighted the publication of the article in a relatively obscure science journal, Sternberg's life will never be the same.
So, the question is-- if evolution is so solid a theory, so widely accepted, and so elegant a solution to the problem of species diversity, and I think it is all of those things, why do many of its proponents react to any criticism or questioning of its tenets with such vehemence and vitriol? Honestly, the critics of ID wail and bemoan the religious substrates of the ID theory-- and justifiably so-- but do they not see that reactions like the one against Sternberg paint them as just another sect of religious fanatics of the type they proport to despise?
Comments:
<< Home
I guess that I don't see the big issue with this. The question of the history of evolution will be clouded for who knows how long because we can't know for sure (at least at this point in time) what happened 530 million years ago.
The evolutionary proponents of the Cambrian Explosion (which refers to the period in which there is sudden geological appearance of fossils) make the argument that there was a (currently) unexplained genetic mutation of Precambrian life forms which created the precursor of the myriad life forms of our current period. They further explain that the Precambrian life forms were soft-bodied and, as such, could not be fossilized (thus the lack of Precambrian fossils and glut of Cambrian fossils). One possible explanation for the sudden appearance of the fossils of the Cambrian period is that it is the first period in which more easily fossilized hard shells and bones developed.
One could contest that, however, by noting that many of the Cambrian fossils are of soft-bodied life forms. If the Cambrian soft-bodied life forms could be fossilized, why couldn't their Precambrian predecessors?
Many of the proposed explanations produce viable questions to their accuracy. That isn't to say that any or all of the explanations of the theories of the Cambrian Explosion are invalid, it's just that some of the explanations may require some explaining of their own.
It truly appears that the issue is about theories of the origins of life (or at least the origins of the complex life forms of today) instead of whether evolution can or does occur. Intelligent design theory seems to be saying that, judging by the complexity of the life forms of today, it is more probable that an intelligent agent designed those complex life forms purposely.
Take away from the theory what you will. If you think that it is just something sneaky created by some Christian crackpots in an attempt to get God mentioned again in the classrooms of our public schools, then ignore it. If you think that the complex life forms of today were less likely a freak, genetic accident and more likely the result of a purposeful act to design such complex organisms, then insert your favorite creator or creators (the gods of Olympus, the God of the Bible, or the Elohim alien race of the Raelians) in place of "intelligent agent."
Post a Comment
The evolutionary proponents of the Cambrian Explosion (which refers to the period in which there is sudden geological appearance of fossils) make the argument that there was a (currently) unexplained genetic mutation of Precambrian life forms which created the precursor of the myriad life forms of our current period. They further explain that the Precambrian life forms were soft-bodied and, as such, could not be fossilized (thus the lack of Precambrian fossils and glut of Cambrian fossils). One possible explanation for the sudden appearance of the fossils of the Cambrian period is that it is the first period in which more easily fossilized hard shells and bones developed.
One could contest that, however, by noting that many of the Cambrian fossils are of soft-bodied life forms. If the Cambrian soft-bodied life forms could be fossilized, why couldn't their Precambrian predecessors?
Many of the proposed explanations produce viable questions to their accuracy. That isn't to say that any or all of the explanations of the theories of the Cambrian Explosion are invalid, it's just that some of the explanations may require some explaining of their own.
It truly appears that the issue is about theories of the origins of life (or at least the origins of the complex life forms of today) instead of whether evolution can or does occur. Intelligent design theory seems to be saying that, judging by the complexity of the life forms of today, it is more probable that an intelligent agent designed those complex life forms purposely.
Take away from the theory what you will. If you think that it is just something sneaky created by some Christian crackpots in an attempt to get God mentioned again in the classrooms of our public schools, then ignore it. If you think that the complex life forms of today were less likely a freak, genetic accident and more likely the result of a purposeful act to design such complex organisms, then insert your favorite creator or creators (the gods of Olympus, the God of the Bible, or the Elohim alien race of the Raelians) in place of "intelligent agent."
# posted by 
: 2:27 PM
: 2:27 PM<< Home
