Birdnow vs. Darwin
I take on Darwin in my latest at the American Thinker.
Let me state for the record; I am not a Creationist in the strict sense of the word, and I believe that God created Life using natural mechanisms. That said, what I object to is the slavish devotion to a theory which leaks so profusely. It strikes me that Darwinists believe far more than they think. They defend Darwin because they think admitting Darwin`s problems will be tantamount to a return to the Dark Ages, where scientists will be burned at the stake for being rational. That they themselves are the ones doing the burning never seems to occur to the rabid defenders of Darwin. If we are to be rational, let`s look at the matter rationally.
Darwin has been given a free pass for over a hundred years, largely because he has been a useful tool for the left to recreate society in a mold which is more agreeable to them. Darwin can be used to justify all manner of things, from a libertine sexual more to abortion and euthenasia, to socialist despotism. Darwin has been a particularly handy club with which to beat Christianity. Because it serves so useful a purpose, most of its proponents fight doggedly in it`s favor despite increasing evidence against it. None seek any alternative, because for far too long Big Science and liberalism has invested their hopes in this theory.
I neither support nor condemn Intelligent Design, but I support it`s study because we need to open our minds on this issue. Darwinism is like the Geocentric theory of the Universe; it seems to make more sense than the crazy idea that the Earth merely revolves around the Sun. (Both the Heliocentric and Geocentric theories had epicycles, in which the planets had to move backwards in their orbits at times. Copernicus was unable to eliminate this particular problem; it was up to Johanne Kepler who realized that the orbits were eliptical!) Darwinists stand in the position of the old Geocentrics, fighting desperately to hold onto a collapsing theory and worldview.
I suspect that 100 years from now, people will smile at the quaint, silly superstition known as Darwinism which we hold as gospel truth today.
Let me state for the record; I am not a Creationist in the strict sense of the word, and I believe that God created Life using natural mechanisms. That said, what I object to is the slavish devotion to a theory which leaks so profusely. It strikes me that Darwinists believe far more than they think. They defend Darwin because they think admitting Darwin`s problems will be tantamount to a return to the Dark Ages, where scientists will be burned at the stake for being rational. That they themselves are the ones doing the burning never seems to occur to the rabid defenders of Darwin. If we are to be rational, let`s look at the matter rationally.
Darwin has been given a free pass for over a hundred years, largely because he has been a useful tool for the left to recreate society in a mold which is more agreeable to them. Darwin can be used to justify all manner of things, from a libertine sexual more to abortion and euthenasia, to socialist despotism. Darwin has been a particularly handy club with which to beat Christianity. Because it serves so useful a purpose, most of its proponents fight doggedly in it`s favor despite increasing evidence against it. None seek any alternative, because for far too long Big Science and liberalism has invested their hopes in this theory.
I neither support nor condemn Intelligent Design, but I support it`s study because we need to open our minds on this issue. Darwinism is like the Geocentric theory of the Universe; it seems to make more sense than the crazy idea that the Earth merely revolves around the Sun. (Both the Heliocentric and Geocentric theories had epicycles, in which the planets had to move backwards in their orbits at times. Copernicus was unable to eliminate this particular problem; it was up to Johanne Kepler who realized that the orbits were eliptical!) Darwinists stand in the position of the old Geocentrics, fighting desperately to hold onto a collapsing theory and worldview.
I suspect that 100 years from now, people will smile at the quaint, silly superstition known as Darwinism which we hold as gospel truth today.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 9:42 AM
12 Comments:
Clear, concise, excellent.
Thanks.
Timothy,
You did an excellent job on this piece.
Addendum:
Darwinists act so threatened. Why is that?
Excellent column Tim,
I think you are only too right when stating that Darwin has been getting a “free pass for over a hundred years.” Even the title of his book is a more than a little pretentious (The origin of species) and has been over-sold by the scientific community since it was published. It would be a more accurately described if it were titled “The mechanism of variation within species due to changing local conditions” or “The origin of sub-species.” Then Darwin couldn’t have laid claim to the all-inclusive scientific coup of his day and age if it were properly labeled.
Natural selection is a valid explanation of the process by which some species, unable to adapt their lifestyle to variable environmental pressures fade into extinction. It does not however tell us were all species originated, for that you will have to consult an entirely different book.
This article almost reads like a parody since it contains so many factual errors.
The peppered moth data was NOT falsified for example. I will write up a more detailed rebuttal at panda's thumb.
This article almost reads like a parody since it contains so many factual errors.
The peppered moth data was NOT falsified for example. I will write up a more detailed rebuttal at panda's thumb.
Have you figured out yet that DNA isn't made out of RNA?
Someone who actually understands biology responds to your error-filled article here:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/timothy_birdnow/
Do you really live in St. Louis? So close to Peter Raven you are that some of his knowledge should get into you by osmosis -- and yet you appear never to have read anything on evolution, let alone visited the botanical gardens or discussed the issue with someone who knows it well.
Go here, and ask one of the docents for some information on evolution: Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd.;
314-577-9400
Perhaps you could get a few minutes with Dr. Peter Raven there -- ask him why he bothers to spend so much time on evolution in his high school biology textbooks, and ask him to tell you how evolution works and why you should care. You're in for some eye-opening surprises -- good luck!
There's not nearly enough energy in Brownian motion to prevent DNA from forming. Molecular bonds require a great deal of energy to form, compared with the energy in Brownian motion.
If you send an electric spark for example, through a gaseous mixture of CH4, NH3, H2, and H20, you'll get amino acids to form, because some of those simple molecules will be rent asunder by the energy of the spark. Some of the pieces of those molecules will reform into what they were originally, but a few of them will combine to form more complex molecules, and even amino acids.
It's easy, you could do it at home, just like you could have a meth lab at home. The recombination of pieces of simple molecules to form more complex molecules happens not in spite of Brownian motion, but because of it. If the pieces weren't moving aroung at random, they'd just recombine back into the organization they had before.
This kind of thing happens all the time, and it's all random. Humans just put bulk materials together and apply heat. The rest is done by the qualities of the atoms and molecules themselves.
The (largely) covalent bonds that hold the atoms of amino acids together are quite strong. If they weren't stronger than Brownian motion, there wouldn't be life on Earth right now, I think you can see that. If Brownian motion could prevent molecules from forming at any time, then those molecules once formed would not be able to hold togther, because of Brownian motion.
If you are wrong about the very basis of your argument against evolution, then it doesn't seem likely that your argument is valid. Also, DNA is not made from RNA, and RNA isn't that much simpler than DNA. You should at least study up a little on science before you make another such gaffe.
Here is a link to some nice pictures of nucleotides. They're really pretty simple, not much more complex than a snowflake. Snowflakes also form because of Brownian motion.
Fag.
It is not easy to assess these things.
I did not know there were so many libertarians around the globe including myself.
hari
http://unitelibertarians.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home