evolution
Good grief. I don't understand why otherwise rational people are so unreasonable when things turn to the theory of evolution. And I don't mean those who want to teach ID alongside it. I mean perfectly reasonable, progressive people, that somehow feel so vested in the theory of unguided evolution that they feel themselves compelled to put it on some pedestal. They can actually bring themselves to write or say that it is more than a theory. I don't get that, did they all of a sudden forget how science works? We don't do any better than theories. Ever.
And the worst is that they always try to pull the rest of our scientific endeavours into the fray, either by comparing unguided evolution to the theory of gravity, or by saying that it is studied with the same means and rigour as physics, or chemistry. In the pantheon of science, evolution is a very long way away from physics, my friends. It ain't even in the same building.
Why do progressives accept the battleground that others have chosen, and bet all of science on it? Unguided evolution is a great theory, built on the basis of a very sketchy record of the past, and on an enormous and ungoing study of the life on this planet. But it is incomplete.
You know, comparing it to Newton's laws of gravity may not be a bad idea after all. Newton's laws stood for centuries as absolutely perfect. Tested over and over again, leading to numerous inventions and seriously changing the nature of our societies. Tested much, much better than the theory of evolution, one might add (after all, it's a tad easier to measure the speed of a falling item than it is to get a species to grow a new sensory organ. Or lose one...). And yet, Newton's laws are wrong. Not by much, mind you, when tested in everyday applications. Not much at all, for most practical uses. And yet, it is fundamentally, spectacularly wrong. Einstein's universe is drastically, qualitatively different than Newton's. And you can't tell them apart unless you have really accurate instruments measuring very reproducible experimental results.
Let them teach ID. Like its opponents say, there's not much to it, so it won't take much time in the curriculum. And, as the polls below show, generations of teaching ONLY unguided evolution has lead to a population that simply does not believe in it. Since 1982, the number of Americans that believe in unguided evolution has been stable and below 14%. So, allow ID in the schools, and move on to something that matters. The US lost this battle. Ages ago. ID won't harm science, in any serious way. Opposing it does.
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
And the worst is that they always try to pull the rest of our scientific endeavours into the fray, either by comparing unguided evolution to the theory of gravity, or by saying that it is studied with the same means and rigour as physics, or chemistry. In the pantheon of science, evolution is a very long way away from physics, my friends. It ain't even in the same building.
Why do progressives accept the battleground that others have chosen, and bet all of science on it? Unguided evolution is a great theory, built on the basis of a very sketchy record of the past, and on an enormous and ungoing study of the life on this planet. But it is incomplete.
You know, comparing it to Newton's laws of gravity may not be a bad idea after all. Newton's laws stood for centuries as absolutely perfect. Tested over and over again, leading to numerous inventions and seriously changing the nature of our societies. Tested much, much better than the theory of evolution, one might add (after all, it's a tad easier to measure the speed of a falling item than it is to get a species to grow a new sensory organ. Or lose one...). And yet, Newton's laws are wrong. Not by much, mind you, when tested in everyday applications. Not much at all, for most practical uses. And yet, it is fundamentally, spectacularly wrong. Einstein's universe is drastically, qualitatively different than Newton's. And you can't tell them apart unless you have really accurate instruments measuring very reproducible experimental results.
Let them teach ID. Like its opponents say, there's not much to it, so it won't take much time in the curriculum. And, as the polls below show, generations of teaching ONLY unguided evolution has lead to a population that simply does not believe in it. Since 1982, the number of Americans that believe in unguided evolution has been stable and below 14%. So, allow ID in the schools, and move on to something that matters. The US lost this battle. Ages ago. ID won't harm science, in any serious way. Opposing it does.
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
posted by Endorendil at 19:33
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home