OK, Bush has been Pitted enough on this issue, so no real reason to do so again. Suffice it to say that on the subject of evolution, he’s an idiot.
But why can’t the press at least get the details right? Doesn’t the SJ Merc have science writers to cover these types of issues? This is supposed to be the newspaper of Silicon Valley, not the newspaper of Silicone Valley…
Emphasis added.
There is so much misinformation floating around about evolution [by natural selection] that we don’t need large newspapers confusing that subject with “the origin of life”. That’s exactly what the creationists and the IDers want-- to mix those two subjects together in the minds of the public.
Once and for all, Evolution is not about the origin of life, goddamit!!!
Do you mean theory in the sense that it is used by the common dude in a conversation, or theory in the way that it is used in the scientific community?
John, you’re right that evolution per se doesn’t deal with the question of abiogenesis, but the two subjects naturally go together. If we’re discussing the history of living organisms and the processes by which one type of organism changes into another, it’s very natural to expect that discussion to address the question of how living organisms got here in the first place.
And IMO the teaching of evolution in schools should address that question. Namely, the teachers should say “We dunno. Researchers are experimenting to see if living organisms can arise by purely chemical processes from complex molecules, but so far no joy.”
Evolution and natural selection are not synonyms. Natural selection is one possible mechanism by which evolution occurs. There is no reason why there should not be scientific inquiry into the origin of life. It goes hand in hand with the evolution of life. Even the universe itself evolves.
Well, sad in the sense of unfortunate if you believe that there actually is a scientific theory known as Intelligent Design. ID has a few scientist adherents, but there is no such formal theory (even a discredited theory) known as Intelligent Design. They have never bothered to formulate or describe the theory. They want it taught in schools without bothering to discuss it in scientific journals.
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the theory behind intelligent design? Evolution seems to offer answers, but from what I’ve read about intelligent design (admittedly not much), it seems to advance the notion that life is too complex to have evolved naturally over the ages. See what I’m getting at? The theory of evolution seems to offer up a theoretical explanation for how our species emerged, but intelligent design seems to simply shoot down evolution without advancing an assertion of its own.
Again, I haven’t read too much on this, so please forgive the gaps in my understanding of the issue.
For the record, as Eugenie Scott often explains, specific claims of irreducible complexity (for example, the flagellum) are indeed falsifiable, although irreducible complexity itself is not. But that shouldn’t be surprising since natural selection is not falsifiable either. Neither is any other metaphysical claim. In fact, falsifiablity is not falsifiable.
At its root is the concept of irreducible complexity — that is, the idea that there exist organs and organisms for which it is necessary that all components be in cotemporaneous working order for them to function. Remove one component, and the whole organism would fail. The obvious implication is that such an organism could not have survived to evolve into its completed state.
Which makes it all the more important to ensure people understand the difference between evolution and the origin of life. It also is no reason to teach ID, since ID isn’t science. Science hasn’t explained the origin of life, but science hasn’t explained a lot of things, yet.
You are mistaken. Just as with natural selection, it is not testable as a metaphysical claim. But specific claims it makes with respect to organisms are testable. And it predicts (among other things) that natural selection would lead to evolutionary dead ends — organisms that cannot possibly evolve.
Incidentally, Scott herself has conceded that Darwinism as a whole (including natural selection) is not falsifiable. She has a firm grasp of the philosophy of science.
It is a matter of infinite scope. In order to falsify natural selection, you would have to show that there is no other possible pathway by which variations in allele frequencies arise. Metaphysical claims in general are not falsifiable for the same reason.
Oh, I agree. I’m just saying that the press and public opinion will never treat evolution and the origin of life as two separate subjects, although technically that’s what they are, since in the popular notion of biology they go together like ham and eggs.
Maybe I’m just reading this wrong, but if the theory of natural selection claims that it’s the only evolutionary mechanism, couldn’t you falsify it by demonstrating some other mechanism, like symbiosis?
