Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders (response Part I)



At 19:50 -0400 8/26/05, R. McDermott wrote:

But evolution only requires observing successive generations of bacteria or
some other such short generation organism. By what you've written
previously, it doesn't require recourse to fossils at all.

Why do you think they invented the false dichotomy between what they
call "microevolution" and "macroevolution"? You need to read some of
the things they write to see the wiggling and squirming they go
through to get out from under the fact that we can see evolution
happening in the laboratory every day by examining what happens to
short-lived species, like fruit flies, or what is happening to
harmful bacteria that we once had under control using antibiotics,
but which are now starting to become resistant to those same
materials through overuse of them, or even such things as the age-old
practice of animal breeding, all of which depend on exactly the
mechanism that is responsible for the existence of evolution.

[snip]

> But those who believe in a young earth are hard to convince.

Agreed, but there are so very few of them, that I don't think that it
matters. What is necessary is to remove their support base. You aren't
going to convert idealogues of any stripe. You MUST concentrate on the vast
majority of people instead.

The whole reason that this controversy has heated up is due to the
past successes of the young-earth creationists, which led to such
court cases and those in Arkansas and Louisiana a few years ago.
Whether their numbers are small or large is pretty much irrelevant;
they have become highly influential, and although their influence is
on the decline at the moment, their cause has been effectively taken
up by the ID proponents, who have dropped the aspects of creationism
most easily argued against, and have revived the movement with lots
of energy. However, their tactics have not changed. As someone
recently said (I think it might have been Bob Park) ID is nothing
more than Creationism dressed up in a tuxedo. It may look pretty but
it still smells just as bad. And unfortunately, their arguments have
fallen upon responsive ears among the general population, with
somewhere around half or more (depending on which poll you read)
believing that evolution cannot have happened, and a surprisingly
large number even believing still in a young earth, despite the
overwhelming evidence against it.

[snip]

I'm not sure about the "many more" part, especially since what you say is
happening is blatantly in violation of the separation of Church and State
requirement, but this is precisely why I have a problem with both sides.

It has been the church-state argument that has most effectively kept
them at bay so far. Unfortunately this is not a popular argument with
the general public, who sees it more in a "fair-play" sense, that has
been well-exploited by IDers. "Fair play" *is* an idea that resonates
with the public, and has even made more recent inroads among the
judiciary. We are all in favor of "fair play," and open airing of
differing ideas, even if those ideas that will be elbowed into the
science curriculum are irrelevant to science. This has made the
argument difficult for the scientists, who don't make many friends by
opposing the "fair-play" argument, and as a result, end up looking
more closed-minded than the other side, even though, on closer
examination, the contrary is true.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
--Douglas Adams
******************************************************