Friends of Darwin

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« A dream is a nightmare your heart makes? | Main | "Those who seek temporary safety will never get safety" »

August 25, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Darwin is a science hero, like Newton. But, like Newton's, his theory will be replaced, and has already been heavily revised, if not reconstructed, in recent years. Even gravity, after all, is now defunct. All scientific theories are replaced in time. Science humbly produces theories, not truths. "Truth" is for religion.
But I have no idea from whence Hinderaker is coming.

I don't know a single intellectually serious person who disparages evolution. Not one. (Incidentally, I received my primary education at a *very* conservative Christian school in the 1970s, where the science teachers wouldn't have dreamed of teaching anything but, you know, *science*.)

As for our collection of Chicken Littles, these are strange and unsettling times we live in, and they can certainly be forgiven for their moment... okay, for their extended period, of panic. The thing about predicting disaster in the Middle East is that you'll almost never be wrong, eventually; it's just a bitch getting the timing right.

But like Allahpundit, I will be heeding a variant of Descartes' dictum:

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived."

Substitute "those who are so easily..." for "that by which we have even once been..." and there you have it.

Barry, darling.

For me, it's not so much the fact that otherwise thoughtful and educated people deny the overwhelming evidence for the evolutionary explanation of life's diversity that is so jarring. It is the hubris involved in presuming to tell the Creator just how He operates.

Job 38: 4: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5: Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! ..."

Truly, these people remind me of Solomon's dictum in Ecclesiastes: "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

OBTW, last week's poem toyed playfully with just such "questions."

That the evolution of the earth and of human beings was and is continuing, there is no doubt in my mind.

That Darwin's original theories as to the whys and wherefores is correct - I sincerely doubt. There have been many things learned since then in science. There have been many bad science theories debunked. Just as there have been many bogus theories to take the place of those we have jettisoned.

We can see major signs of evolution even over the last few hundred years. The question is not "do we evolve" but "how do we evolve" and "how did it all start". It may be that we never find an answer with real proof. But as humans we will constantly be looking. So the "theory" will be constantly changing as outlooks change.

If we haven't completely destroyed ourselves and society in the next 500 years, I would be willing to bet that we currently have no clue what the theories of that time will be.

Things evolve period. As to how and why the proof is not conclusive. Need more be said?

When I have questions concerning biology and evolution, then I go to the expert.

That's how one should handle their curiosity of any subject.

Darwin was a hack. He 'stole' the idea from Wallace. :-) Ok, enough humor.


What seems to get lost in the whole argument over evolution is a serious discussion of the limitations of the theory and/or its shortcomings.

What's the point of the two sides talking over each other. One says it's provably solid the other says it's not.

Some see the theory of evolution as a tautology. If a species survives then it must be the fittest. Does/Can the theory predict which mutations will survive and which won't or is it like a nostradamus prediction? i.e. we only (believe we) understand the quatranes after the fact, or in the case of evolution we see the results of how a species has evolved and say, 'see, that's evolution.'

The theory doesn't explain how life started which is what the ID detractors always bring up. I see this as an apples v. oranges comparison. It's my understanding the Theory never addressed how life begins, only how it adjusts to environmental factors/stresses put upon a species.


Let's see . . . Assrocket, a known hack who will jump through rhetorical hoops of fire to avoid acknowledging any fact which clashes with his view of The Way Things Ought To Be, is stupid enough to deny the truth of evolution--and you're surprised by this?

Sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but that makes you exactly as stupid as he is.

Tom Tom: Your logic -- not to mention your eloquence -- is mind boggling. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals


Blog powered by Typepad