To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

[AV1611VET]

From yahoo answers:

As the Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

Dr. Cornelius Hunter is right: “In the life sciences one's alternatives are to be a Darwinist or to be a Darwinist. Passing grades, letters of recommendation, graduate school admission, doctorate exams, faculty hiring, and tenure promotion all require adherence to the theory of evolution. The lists are long of otherwise qualified candidates who could not take that next career step because they did not conform to the Darwinian paradigm. Academia, and the life sciences in particular, have undergone a long period of in-breeding and it is hardly surprising that, as the National Academy of Sciences' booklet triumphantly declares, ‘The overwhelming majority of scientists no longer question whether evolution has occurred.’”

Perhaps someone can confirm this?

 

[Metal Minister]

 

[AV1611VET]

... Thank you, sir!

 

[JustMeSee]

That information was not meant to be shared.

 

[AV1611VET]

That information was not meant to be shared.

I don't think it's any secret that, if you want to go far in the life sciences, you'd better know how to spell Darwin's name.

 

[JustMeSee]

I don't think it's any secret that, if you want to go far in the life sciences, you'd better know how to spell Darwin's name.

Not if you go to a fundamentalist Christian college. My niece is a biology major, and she will not have any of that evolution business in her curriculum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not if you go to a fundamentalist Christian college. My niece is a biology major, and she will not have any of that evolution business in her curriculum.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the OP that are pleasing to God.

 

[JustMeSee]

I'm sure there are exceptions to the OP that are pleasing to God.

I have been told that biological evolution is a fact. Is that not pleasing to God?
Do things evolve in spite of God's Will?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have been told that biological evolution is a fact.

So have I.

Is that not pleasing to God?

In my opinion ... no.

Do things evolve in spite of God's Will?

To a point, then they hit a boundary and cannot go any farther.

I don't know what that boundary is, but I know it's there because God is [a] God of boundaries.

The boundary may be in the form of sterility, or a preset number of generations, or a weakening of the ability to procreate, or all of the above.

I don't know.

 

[JustMeSee]

So, you agree that evolution is a fact!?

 

[Jamin4422]

So, you agree that evolution is a fact!?

Evolution is fact and fiction. Truth and error mixed together.

 

[JustMeSee]

Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities

 

[Giberoo]

OP: If that quote is from Dr Cornelius Hunter, then you have to take it with an enormous pinch of salt. Dr Hunter's fallacies are not always obvious, but I have spent more time on his blogsite than I care to recall, and can assure you that he is no scientist. Nor does he understand science in the slightest. He thinks biologists adhere to the theory of evolution out of blind fanaticism rather than because it is, by far, the best explanation from the evidence we have.

Everything in science can be questioned. Everything. That is the nature of science. It is self-critiquing and self-correcting. That is how it progresses. To imagine the scientific academia as a bunch of stuffy elitists who resist change and exclude anyone who doesn't sing from their songsheet demonstrates the most basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. The only way to become a famous scientist (and every scientist wants to be a famous one) is to go against current received wisdom and scientific knowledge, and then, crucially, to be proved correct.

That said, to be a scientist, if you are going to criticise a theory, you have to do it scientifically. And this is where the problems occur. The theory of evolution is supported by a truly vast cache of evidence. Virtually every biologist approves it. And those that challenge it do so on religious grounds (at least in every single case I have ever heard of or encountered). This is not good science, and it IS a good reason to exclude people from the science labs.

 

[Elendur]

Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities

That specific article was full of red herrings and strawmen. Especially the links provided in it... I was hoping for something interesting...

 

[Metal Minister]

So, you agree that evolution is a fact!?

What we might call "micro-evolution" is a fact. We see, for instance a variety of dogs, but "macro-evolution" is not fact. That is the theory that everything came from a single cell that magicked itself into existence, and has given rise to everything we see.

 

[Giberoo]

What we might call "micro-evolution" is a fact. We see, for instance a variety of dogs, but "macro-evolution" is not fact. That is the theory that everything came from a single cell that magicked itself into existence, and has given rise to everything we see.

Untrue.

Evolution is a fact. The only distinction between so-called 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' is one of scale. They are functionally identical. Biologists hardly ever distinguish between the two at all.

ID-ers like to infer them as separate process, as though one could be correct while the other is wrong. This is totally fallacious.

'Macro-evolution' is every bit as much a fact as 'micro-evolution'. They both describe the same process.

 

[RickG]

Everything in science can be questioned. Everything. That is the nature of science. It is self-critiquing and self-correcting. That is how it progresses. To imagine the scientific academia as a bunch of stuffy elitists who resist change and exclude anyone who doesn't sing from their songsheet demonstrates the most basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. The only way to become a famous scientist (and every scientist wants to be a famous one) is to go against current received wisdom and scientific knowledge, and then, crucially, to be proved correct.

That said, to be a scientist, if you are going to criticize a theory, you have to do it scientifically. And this is where the problems occur. The theory of evolution is supported by a truly vast cache of evidence. Virtually every biologist approves it. And those that challenge it do so on religious grounds (at least in every single case I have ever heard of or encountered). This is not good science, and it IS a good reason to exclude people from the science labs.

Well said Giberoo, well said!

 

[RickG]

Evolution is fact and fiction. Truth and error mixed together.

Here we go with the Jekyll / Hyde of Gap Theory again.

 

[Metal Minister]

Untrue.

Evolution is a fact. The only distinction between so-called 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' is one of scale. They are functionally identical. Biologists hardly ever distinguish between the two at all.

ID-ers like to infer them as separate process, as though one could be correct while the other is wrong. This is totally fallacious.

'Macro-evolution' is every bit as much a fact as 'micro-evolution'. They both describe the same process.

Incorrect. One is the variation of an animal, the other is the complete change to another animal. Call me when you find the fossil record that proves 100% that all life came from the same single cell billions of years ago. So far, that record is so full of gaping holes I could drive 10 trucks through them side by side. *yawn*

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you agree that evolution is a fact!?

I agree that microevolution, also known as adaptation, is a fact.