The science of Evolution

| 1 Comment

Most educated people accept that creationism and its more polished step-child, Intelligent Design, are examples of theocracy, and not science, excluding, of course, residents of the 17th century, such as the folks at Evolution News.

Including that bastion of conservatism, the Wall Street Journal:

WSJ.com - Science Journal:

...Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, “Teach the controversy.” That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.

“Every scientific theory is constantly under scrutiny and has unknowns at its edges,” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Singling out evolution makes it appear that evolution is suspect, which it isn't.”

...
The funny thing about demands to “teach the controversy” in evolution is that creationists are focusing on the wrong things. They argue that evolution is wrong because there are no transitional fossils showing how one species evolved into another, for instance. But paleontologists have found fossils that are transitional between whales and their terrestrial ancestors, and between finned creatures and limbed ones.
Creationists also claim that evolution can't explain how small genetic changes could produce new species (rather than the same species with new traits, such as bacteria resistant to antibiotics). But the new field of “evo-devo” shows how minor genetic changes can lead to major structural ones, such as the presence or absence of wings or legs, notes biologist Sean Carroll of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Gaps in knowledge? Of course. Every ongoing field of science has them. Physicists can't explain why elementary particles have the masses and other traits they do, but that doesn't invalidate the basic theory of matter. It just means scientists have to keep trying. Say “God did it” if you like, but that isn't science.
Evolution is as well-established by empirical observation as other sciences. There is no serious debate that evolution happens, only deeper questions (left to college and graduate school), such as whether it proceeds gradually or in spasms. “It's dishonest to single out evolution,” Prof. Carroll says, “when the very nature of science is to have unresolved questions.”


{}

Technorati Tags:

1 Comment

The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways -- I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Seth A. published on June 3, 2005 8:08 AM.

WSJ on new SEC chief was the previous entry in this blog.

Hoops the Gymn is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.37