Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Woman to Woman: A Debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a point-counterpoint argument about Intelligent Design. The commentary is by Susan Feldhahn. She writes:
Darwin’s theory was published 149 years ago, and has been the primary origin-of-life theory since the 1930’s. Since then, evidence to support macroevolution (one species mutating to a different species) has advanced only marginally, while evidence questioning it has exploded. Advances in genetics, cellular biology, chemistry and many other fields have been seized to map human DNA and create wonder drugs. Yet they also raise questions about Darwinian macroevolution - which no scientist can follow up without being “expelled” from the respect of the scientific community. It’s absolutely absurd.
Well, that's wrong. There is quite a bit of evidence of macroevolution as well as transitional species. There is something absurd about this passage, all right. This has become achingly familiar: a writer argues that scientists cling blindly to evolution despite the fact that there is little evidence for it. The problem is that the writer is completely unaware of the avalanche of evidence that evolution (micro and macro) has in the tank. That's embarrassing.
The rebuttal is by Andrea Cornell Sarvady, who writes:
Do Intelligent Design proponents really think that the thousands of geologists digging their lives away wouldn’t be thrilled to discover mammal fossils down in the age of fishes? Darwin would spin in his grave, but so what? Scientists want to be right. For this reason, they study Intelligent Design tirelessly. Too bad that the evidence for it just isn’t there.
This is not the homerun I was hoping for but it is a good parry. Scientists tend to react badly at having a political campaign waged against them masquerading as science. I would too. Here is my comment about the paragraph by Ms. Feldhahn:
Wrong. There is quite a bit of evidence of macroevolution as well as for the existence of transitional species. The human fossil record alone is replete with evidence of transitional forms grading from one species to another. There is something absurd about what Ms. Feldhahn writes, all right. This attack has become achingly familiar: a writer argues that scientists cling blindly to evolution despite the fact that there is little evidence for it. The problem is that the writer is completely unaware of the avalanche of evidence that evolution (micro and macro) has in the tank. I have seen this before in the works of Phillip Johnson and anything that comes out of the Institute for Creation Research. Please, If you are going to tackle evolution at least know what you are talking about.
Now playing: Bill Evans - Solar