Where do the big jumps come from in evolution?
One of the most puzzling aspects of the development of life, and a major argument for Intelligent Design, has always been how do the big jumps come about?
According to EurekAlert a book co-authored by a Harvard Medical School professor and a professor from the University of California-Berkeley entitled "The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma," addresses this very question.
Apparently the book describes how newly discovered molecular properties of organisms facilitate evolution and how "the development of new arrangements of interlocking parts that some call 'irreducibly complex,' can only be understood in the light of the last 20 years of research in cell biology and development."
Someone call Michael Behe and let him know that the pile of published information on molecular evolution, which he claims doesn't exist, just got higher. Perhaps if Behe would spend more time tracking developments in his own field and less time providing text for creationist books such as "Of Pandas and People" he might learn a thing or three.
This is the critical difference between a science, such as evolution, and intelligent design. The response in science to "I don't know" is "let's try something else or let's look for new information because the answer is out there someplace." In intelligent design the response is "GOD DID IT, WE'RE DONE."
As I've said before, even if intelligent design is true, we'd all be a lot better off pretending that it's false.
Now here's where "faith" comes in or what I prefer to call "confidence." I am not going to attempt to read this book. I'm certain I don't have the training to understand it so it wouldn't do me any good to even try. However, I have "confidence" that a professor of Harvard and a Professor of the University of California-Berkeley are quite competent and that their work has been extensively peer reviewed by other knowledgable experts and found to have merit. Therefore, I am willing to accept that what they say in their book is very probably true.
Yes, this is a form of "Appeal to Authority" but notice that I didn't say that it was 100% certain that it was true, just very probably true and until someone comes along and demonstrates a problem with their conclusions, that strikes me as a reasonable position to take.
I might point out that people like Dr. Dino, the guy that runs Answers in Genesis and the guy that gives "biblically correct" science museam tours have to reject the work, or adjust the conclusions, of these gentlemen out of hand because it conflicts with their fundamental premise.
Can somebody, anybody, explain to me how a dogma driven rejection makes sense? As Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
According to EurekAlert a book co-authored by a Harvard Medical School professor and a professor from the University of California-Berkeley entitled "The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma," addresses this very question.
Apparently the book describes how newly discovered molecular properties of organisms facilitate evolution and how "the development of new arrangements of interlocking parts that some call 'irreducibly complex,' can only be understood in the light of the last 20 years of research in cell biology and development."
Someone call Michael Behe and let him know that the pile of published information on molecular evolution, which he claims doesn't exist, just got higher. Perhaps if Behe would spend more time tracking developments in his own field and less time providing text for creationist books such as "Of Pandas and People" he might learn a thing or three.
This is the critical difference between a science, such as evolution, and intelligent design. The response in science to "I don't know" is "let's try something else or let's look for new information because the answer is out there someplace." In intelligent design the response is "GOD DID IT, WE'RE DONE."
As I've said before, even if intelligent design is true, we'd all be a lot better off pretending that it's false.
Now here's where "faith" comes in or what I prefer to call "confidence." I am not going to attempt to read this book. I'm certain I don't have the training to understand it so it wouldn't do me any good to even try. However, I have "confidence" that a professor of Harvard and a Professor of the University of California-Berkeley are quite competent and that their work has been extensively peer reviewed by other knowledgable experts and found to have merit. Therefore, I am willing to accept that what they say in their book is very probably true.
Yes, this is a form of "Appeal to Authority" but notice that I didn't say that it was 100% certain that it was true, just very probably true and until someone comes along and demonstrates a problem with their conclusions, that strikes me as a reasonable position to take.
I might point out that people like Dr. Dino, the guy that runs Answers in Genesis and the guy that gives "biblically correct" science museam tours have to reject the work, or adjust the conclusions, of these gentlemen out of hand because it conflicts with their fundamental premise.
Can somebody, anybody, explain to me how a dogma driven rejection makes sense? As Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
posted by Alencon at 9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home