|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2009 : 09:12:03
|
So, we know that since the defeat of Intelligent Design at Dover, the current backup position of creationism has been to teach the 'strengths and weaknesses' of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.
I can easily find its strengths:
It is very parcimonious.
It has been improved upon for 150 years.
It made predictions that failed to falsify it.
It was confirmed to an amazing degree by the recent revolution in molecular biology...
We have multiple instance where it was observed in action. From Lenski's bacteria to darker moth to longer legged lizards.
It has practical applications such as the flue vaccine and the prediction of resistance in bacteria and pests.
And so on...
But, where are the weaknesses?
The only ones I can think of require to ignore reasonable scientific explanations in order to magnify a controversy.
That is the case of Irreducible complexity (I am not aware of any instance of irreducible complexity. Behe's favorite examples, the blood clotting system and the bacterial flagellum, are well explained).
That is also the case of the Cambrian explosion (apparition of Hox genes as well as hard body parts).
Do we have an 'official' list of the weaknesses of the theory of Evolution?
Is there a single one of them that is not based on ignoring the evidences in order to manufacture a problem where there is none?
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 09:37:37 [Permalink]
|
ID's claims to a weakness in evolutionary theory via natural selection and other driving factors is standard for creationists because they have no science of their own. But for defending ID, they hung their hat on irreducible complexity and they are sticking with it, kind of.
As I understand it, they are still pushing "teach the controversy" as their way in. (Expelled) What interests me is that Behe pretty much acknowledges common decent. Only that he sees complexities that he thinks random mutation doesn't account for but a designer does. But the ID crowd from places like the Discovery Institute behave like the creationists of old, finding weaknesses (making up the same crap) that creationists have always made up to debunk evolution. That's what's in their blogs.
They can't even get their own story together until they are pulled into court. It's then that they turn to Behe's version because they know the other crap wont fly. Of course, in Dover, Behe went down in flames. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 10:19:59 [Permalink]
|
It has ONE major weakness. It contradicts the word of God.
Oh you meant scientific weakness......then no, nothing major. It's not 100% explained maybe? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 10:23:29 [Permalink]
|
Yes, they are many currents of ID, from poorly disguised creationism to the idea that each major branching of the philogenic tree is in reality in separate instance of divine creation (just erase the corresponding transitional species) to the fairly weak and still unfalsifiable idea that Evolution works, provided that Go... the intelligent designer, direct what mutations are taking place.
Behe is somewhere toward this later side of the spectrum.
ID is not only not Scientific, it is not even an actual, unified, theory.
But, now, it seems that the stance of Evolution deniers have shifted to 'teach the strengths and weaknesses' of Evolution, as illustrated in this article or in this declaration from the NCSE, and I was wondering if we had any comprehensive list of what these weaknesses would be.
After all, if this is going to be in the standards, there must be a list, no?
And, so far, I only have seen discredited arguments.
Some being widely discredited (Evolution violates thermodynamics...) and some more subtly so (Cambrian explosion).
I am aware than saying: 'Evolution does not have any weaknesses I am aware of' may sound an arrogant response to these claims... but there you are... Evolution does not, as far as I know. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 10:35:01 [Permalink]
|
I think the primary weaknesses of the ToE are profound:
1) Evolution requires some thought and study for a layperson to understand. Many people are too lazy to do so.
2) Little thought at all is required for many to accept weird creation myths. In fact, the less thought, the better.
Even though creation by a deity logically requires a much more complex hypothesis than natural abiogenesis and evolution (how was the deity created, etc.), people are often good at ignoring such implications.
"God did it" is easier to state than "Change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." Three words beats sixteen words hands-down, in minds inclined toward simplicity.
3) Billions of people worldwide belong to money-making organizations based upon mythology. Some of these organizations will fight tooth and nail to protect their financial interests.
4) The religious majority associates evolution with atheism, and atheism with immorality. They are often easily made to think that evolution is an invention of atheists for immoral prurposes.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/18/2009 10:35:52 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 10:59:11 [Permalink]
|
The only weakness that I can think of with regard to evolution is that we don't know everything. But as time goes on, what we have learned has only served to streangthen the theory.
Creationists don't acknowledge the transitionals, because they don't represent as certain, an unbroken lineage to living animals. They also reject them on the grounds that, in the example of dino's to birds, they are classified as either one or the other. As though there exists the classification of "transitional" in the nomenclature. They wouldn't know or understand a cladogram if they tripped over one. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 12:13:12 [Permalink]
|
| Is there a single one of them that is not based on ignoring the evidences in order to manufacture a problem where there is none? |
In a word, no. The weaknesses which supporters of "teaching the controversy" intend to teach are the standard creationist lies we're all familiar with. It's just a theory. There are no transitional fossils. Life is too complex to have evolved by chance. No one was there. Etc.
There is absolutely no intention of presenting a balanced or accurate critique of evolution. This is a legal strategy meant to cram creationism (or at least anti-science creationist arguments) into public schools, and that's the only thing it's meant to do.
I remember reading an article (I'll be damned if I can find it now) of one reporter who observed an instructor teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution to a class over a few days. The teacher pulled out all the standard creationist canards, lies and innuendo. At the conclusion of the lesson, the reporter asked "But what about teaching the strengths of evolution?" The teacher actually replied "I don't know of any."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 13:27:43 [Permalink]
|
| I think it's greatest weakness is it's requirement for sometimes extraordinary timespans - way longer than we can possibly observe directly. While this isn't really a scientific problem, it is at times one of public perception. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 23:19:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
That is also the case of the Cambrian explosion (apparition of Hox genes as well as hard body parts).
|
I don't see how the Cambrian explosion is a weakness for evolution. We're talking about a time period in the scale of 10 million years. That's a lot of time for things happening. Slowly accumulating genetic diversity though genetic drift is acted upon by harsh environment selecting species into several branches and nishes. We could also have several small populations fairly isolated for many more millions of years previous to the Cambrian explosion, and then environment changes during that time released these species from their ecological confinement and population exploded across the planet, not unlike the human race.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 09:56:57 [Permalink]
|
Indeed, the Cambrian explosions was very puzzling at first, in the 19th early 20th century... !then, this argument held (or appeared to hold) some water.
Now, we understand much better what went on and discovered earlier precursor life forms as well transition within the explosion itself and the mystery is no more. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Strengths and weaknesses
