Ben Bova: The ignorant and their leaders are marching endlessly — to oblivion

In 1951, the science-fiction magazine Galaxy published a short story titled "The Marching Morons," by Cyril Kornbluth.

It's a sardonic story, noticed only by science-fiction readers of that long-ago era. Yet it should be required reading in every classroom in America, because every day it comes closer to being frighteningly true.

The story's title is a twist on the old idea that if you stood in one spot and all the Chinese in the world marched past you, the line of marching Chinese would never end. As you watched the Chinese passing, new births would keep the parade going forever.

The basis of Kornbluth's story is brutally simple: idiots have more children than geniuses. Stretch that truth to its ultimate, and you get a world populated by an unending parade of idiots, with a few despised geniuses trying to hold things together before the idiots destroy civilization — and themselves.

Every day it gets truer.

Take a look around. The idiots are everywhere.

We have serious candidates for the presidency announcing that they don't believe in Charles Darwin's concept of evolution. They want to give equal time in classrooms to ideas such as creationism and intelligent design. Either they are grossly ignorant of Darwin's work or they are cynically misleading the public in an attempt to win votes from those who actually are grossly ignorant.

Evolution is real. We see it everywhere in the natural world.

There are literally tons of evidence to support the concept of evolution — fossils from millions of years ago, physical links from one species of plant or animal to another. We see evolution taking place before our eyes when we watch bacteria become immune to antibiotics.

Against all this evidence, the creationists have no evidence at all. They rely on the word of the Bible, books written centuries ago by writers who were trying to understand the history of Israel, not explaining the workings of the natural world.

Scientists seek to understand how the natural world works. With understanding, we gain new capabilities. Darwin's idea of evolution explained how living creatures change and adapt to their surroundings. The concept tied together mountains of observations, and made sense of them.

With this understanding, biologists and medical researchers learned how to develop medicines and vaccines that have saved countless millions of lives. The benefits of modern medicine that we take for granted today arose directly out of Darwin's clarifying idea of evolution through natural selection.

Against this, the creationists have nothing to offer except their bedrock faith. Faith is fine, but it does not add to our store of knowledge. It does not lead to understanding. To say that the intricacies of the natural world are the work of a supernatural creator adds no knowledge, no understanding whatsoever. Such an attitude basically says, "Take our word for it. Don't try to figure it out for yourself."

That way leads to mental paralysis, not knowledge. That path leads to tyranny.n n nThen there are the people who don't accept the idea that our global climate is changing.

The global climate is always changing, albeit slowly. We have had ice ages, when glaciers more than a mile thick covered much of the Northern Hemisphere. We have had long stretches of very warm temperatures, with palm trees growing in Greenland and lush tropical swamps in what is now our Western states.

Those climate swings took thousands, even millions of years to shift back and forth. Our current global warming trend, though, is happening much more swiftly. And the evidence is clear that our own human actions are accelerating the change.

We pour megatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We strip forests. We pave over grasslands.

The good news is that we have the brains and the technology to stop these harmful actions and alleviate the greenhouse warming. The bad news is that powerful corporations in our society do not want to change our behavior; they fear it would cut into their profits.

So they fund studies and advertising campaigns that claim that greenhouse warming is at best a misreading of the evidence, and at worst a hoax.

The morons march on. To their death.

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 25

eagle1600 writes:

Darwin did not "explain" he "described" change. Origins has no explanations.

Darwin called evolution an "hypothesis".

"mountains" of observations have been quietly disproved. The eye's evolutionary journey as speculated by Darwin & described by Dawkin's computer simulations, was slammed in a scientific journal as without merit. This was Darwin's admitted fear, "if anyone could demonstrate" the impossibility of gradual change leading to a major organ, "my theory would collapse"
Well, no one has ever demonstrated how a photo-sensitive cell could feasibly evolve into an eye.

Darwin called the fossil record "woefully inadequate", it still is.

Ben repeats assertions - yet never proffers specifics. Almost every transitional fossil (archteropterx, Lucy etc...)has been proven to be false or a mosaic.

No wonder, Ben never cites a specific piece of evidence because he knows there is creditable refutations available. He alludes - never specifies.

A lot of verbal attacks but no reasoned calm debate is possible with Bova. Science follows evidence not verbal assaults.

Will Bova write an article explaining the lack of "necessary" antecedent pre-Cambrian fossils? There are sufficient quantities of fossils but not the kind Darwinian theory depends upon.

Will he write regarding the statistical impossibility of DNA coded protein chain assimilation in relevant formations?

Will he write about the population explosion of modern homo rather than a gradual primate evolution?

Will he show us evolution "taking place before our eyes" Micro-evolution as he referred to does not satisfy. No new species occurs when bacteria resist antibiotics.The resistance is often invoked by repeated exposure (fruit flies).

Darwin looked at breeders, dogs are still dogs, pigeons still pigeons.

His Galapogos finches reverted back to their pre-drought appearance once the drought ended. They are identical to what he saw. Nothing changed. A five or seven inch beak is a normal specie variation. Is Willie Shoemaker a specie differential from Wilt Chamberlain?

Ben has criticized the Bible - w/o understanding it in the remotest sense.

Another question he can't answer; what new species has ever been introduced during modern human existence?

lapalabra writes:

One of the most arrogant, narrow-minded pieces I have read in a long, long time. I think the NDN needs to reevaluate its relationship with this writer. I would not go quite so far as to say it is hatefulness disguised, just that it is unbelievably rude, self-centered, and self-serving.

anticorp writes:

I find it refreshingly honest, for a change. There is nothing wrong with coddling the Faithful, however, we ought not hide the facts of science and reason so those who don't want to or can't face reality don't get the impression the rest of us choose to live in denial.

We need to raise our voice insisting the non science religious types should keep their wished for worldly ways out of the way of dealing with reality.

GalapagosPete writes:

in response to lapalabra:

One of the most arrogant, narrow-minded pieces I have read in a long, long time. I think the NDN needs to reevaluate its relationship with this writer. I would not go quite so far as to say it is hatefulness disguised, just that it is unbelievably rude, self-centered, and self-serving.

Mr. Bova is saying that ignorance and promotion of superstition is bad public policy and can have tragic and long-lasting consequences.

If calling him names is the best response you can come up with, you are merely underscoring his point.

bbrond writes:

Here is a brief summary of your article:

'Big Bang' Believers = Geniuses
Intelligent Design Believers = Ignorant Masses

Man-made Global Warming Believers = Geniuses
Natural Cause Climate change Believers = Ignorant Masses

Leftist elitists = Geniuses
Everyone else = Ignorant masses

Your article is an illustration of leftist elitism at its best.

eagle1610 writes:

Bova & Leftish ought to read some science journals - Einstein was roundly criticized as "coddling the faithful" when he said he had "discovered the beginner" or "a superior reasoning power" behind creation.Hoyle mocked that discovery as the "big bang" or "church of the big bang"

Leftish & Bova have both adopted the same blind faith they rudely admonish. They refuse the facts to hype their limited understanding of science.
Einstein knew the abuse he would get by discarding Kantian cosmology in favor of a teleological one.

I guess Letish would call Einstein ignorant.

Oh by the way... the Bible said the God created "ex-nihilo" Heb 11:3, That's 2,000 years before Einstein.

eagle1610 writes:

Interesting - Kornbluth believed intelligence was inherited. Who else in history (infamously) believed that as well??

catsmeow writes:

Amen

GalapagosPete writes:

in response to eagle1610:

Interesting - Kornbluth believed intelligence was inherited. Who else in history (infamously) believed that as well??

All traits are inherited, including, obviously, intelligence.

Where do *you* imagine intelligence comes from?

eagle1610 writes:

in response to GalapagosPete:

All traits are inherited, including, obviously, intelligence.

Where do *you* imagine intelligence comes from?

The level of intelligence is not.

You missed the point. If you have a child that is malnourished at the formative years the IQ never fully develops.

If you provide early mental stimulation IQ increases accordingly.

Obviously innate intelligence is a given; (Plato's Phaedo) -vs- Aristotle's "tabula rasa".

I favor Plato's idea rather than Aristotle's, don't you? Of course, you do judging from your comment.

Kornbluth was referring to, what is known as eugenics - even a moron has some intelligence.

As I said, you missed the point.

willfraser1 writes:

in response to eagle1600:

Darwin did not "explain" he "described" change. Origins has no explanations.

Darwin called evolution an "hypothesis".

"mountains" of observations have been quietly disproved. The eye's evolutionary journey as speculated by Darwin & described by Dawkin's computer simulations, was slammed in a scientific journal as without merit. This was Darwin's admitted fear, "if anyone could demonstrate" the impossibility of gradual change leading to a major organ, "my theory would collapse"
Well, no one has ever demonstrated how a photo-sensitive cell could feasibly evolve into an eye.

Darwin called the fossil record "woefully inadequate", it still is.

Ben repeats assertions - yet never proffers specifics. Almost every transitional fossil (archteropterx, Lucy etc...)has been proven to be false or a mosaic.

No wonder, Ben never cites a specific piece of evidence because he knows there is creditable refutations available. He alludes - never specifies.

A lot of verbal attacks but no reasoned calm debate is possible with Bova. Science follows evidence not verbal assaults.

Will Bova write an article explaining the lack of "necessary" antecedent pre-Cambrian fossils? There are sufficient quantities of fossils but not the kind Darwinian theory depends upon.

Will he write regarding the statistical impossibility of DNA coded protein chain assimilation in relevant formations?

Will he write about the population explosion of modern homo rather than a gradual primate evolution?

Will he show us evolution "taking place before our eyes" Micro-evolution as he referred to does not satisfy. No new species occurs when bacteria resist antibiotics.The resistance is often invoked by repeated exposure (fruit flies).

Darwin looked at breeders, dogs are still dogs, pigeons still pigeons.

His Galapogos finches reverted back to their pre-drought appearance once the drought ended. They are identical to what he saw. Nothing changed. A five or seven inch beak is a normal specie variation. Is Willie Shoemaker a specie differential from Wilt Chamberlain?

Ben has criticized the Bible - w/o understanding it in the remotest sense.

Another question he can't answer; what new species has ever been introduced during modern human existence?

Eagle 1600,
You are example one of what the author just described. The "facts" you just cited are creationist bunk and pseudoscientific fraud.
However, since you are soooooooo certain in your ignorance, I will not waste any time attempting to turn you into a non-idiot. Be happy and multiply. I'm going with science not fraud and since evolution is the foundation of the modern sciences and a cornerstone in every accredited university across the world, I'm going to let you be s-----. You deserve it.
Will

willfraser1 writes:

in response to lapalabra:

One of the most arrogant, narrow-minded pieces I have read in a long, long time. I think the NDN needs to reevaluate its relationship with this writer. I would not go quite so far as to say it is hatefulness disguised, just that it is unbelievably rude, self-centered, and self-serving.

Hi lapalabra. I'm assuming you are a creationist or Ider and a global warming denier. You are also an example of what the author was describing. Either that or you are just having a bad day. So, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and describing you as just cranky, instead of a crank.
Will
Oil and Gas Geoscientist
Dallas

willfraser1 writes:

in response to bbrond:

Here is a brief summary of your article:

'Big Bang' Believers = Geniuses
Intelligent Design Believers = Ignorant Masses

Man-made Global Warming Believers = Geniuses
Natural Cause Climate change Believers = Ignorant Masses

Leftist elitists = Geniuses
Everyone else = Ignorant masses

Your article is an illustration of leftist elitism at its best.

This is going to be fun.
Mathematics and astronomy show us the universe is expanding. Collapsing it back according to the mathematics collapses it to a central mass somewhere around 14 BY BP or something like that. Check the literature for details.
OR, a big man with a beard magically created the universe. Sure. That makes a lot of sense. I'm going with the astrophysics and the astronomy sorry about that. I'm not saying I don't believe in a creator, because I do.
I just don't use the Bible (a 6000 year old text not meant to be used scientifically and written before there was any science to speak of other than the Greek mathematicians and philosophers etc) as a science text. Think about that. No proof? I'm goin with the math.
Next, ID. ID is "inextricably linked to its creationist roots". Federal court ruling Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005. Creationism is unconstitutional and is considered establishment of a religion with public funds. US Supreme Court 1987. We don't teach wacky anti science religion in science class. Sorry.
The earth is warming up according to a consensus of scientists. Sadly, thats what the data says. Thats not elitism. the data says,,,no. The work is widely accepted by science as valid.
I'm a conservative former Marine Corps infantry officer , not a lefty, but I do like to use my powers of reasoning. I'm certainly no elitist. Nor is the author.
Hes just making an observation that a lot of people like to stick with creeds or religious beliefs rather than reason and logic. Thats not elitist, its just, well, reason and logic.
I'm sorry you feel evolution has some basis in liberal politics. I thought it was just about ,well, evolution, the central theory in the physical and life sciences. According to a letter just sent by 75 Nobel laureates to the Louisiana legislature, evolution is the most significant field in the biological sciences today. They characterized intelligent design as religious pseudo science. So does the Catholic church(they say its neither science or religion).Neither the Lutheran, Anglican or mehtodist churches support ID either. Thats because its a PR stunt put on by the Discoveroids at the Dishonesty Institute (ok Discovery aka pronentists) You sound like you might be a smart person. Why don't you google creationism and read about it. Its an encyclopedia, you know? Then try googling intelligent design and read about that.Seriously. Then go to the NCSE web site and learn a little bit about science and evolution. Its a great site and very informative.
Then, go to whatever idiot IDer creationist nutso fundamentalist is telling you this ridiculous anti evolution fraud you're repeating
and try to help him or her. because , as the author of the article points out, whoever they are, they're very very very ignorant.
evolution ? Liberal politics? hello.!

GalapagosPete writes:

in response to eagle1610:

The level of intelligence is not.

You missed the point. If you have a child that is malnourished at the formative years the IQ never fully develops.

If you provide early mental stimulation IQ increases accordingly.

Obviously innate intelligence is a given; (Plato's Phaedo) -vs- Aristotle's "tabula rasa".

I favor Plato's idea rather than Aristotle's, don't you? Of course, you do judging from your comment.

Kornbluth was referring to, what is known as eugenics - even a moron has some intelligence.

As I said, you missed the point.

But the potential, whatever level that may be, comes from your parents.

Most people can never be an Einstein or a Hawking, the potential isn't there. If it was, we'd have a lot more Einsteins and Hawkings than we do, because there are plenty of children who do get the opportunity to achieve at that level.

GalapagosPete writes:

eagle1600, As for your post about Darwin, where it is not irrelevant it is false.

Examples:

"Origins has no explanations."

Sure it does. We're here, so obviously there's an explanation. Just because we may not have found it does not mean there isn't one.

"Darwin called evolution an 'hypothesis'."

Points for using "an" in front of "hypothesis." Way more demerits for not noticing that you quoted Darwin calling it his theory in the very next paragraph you posted.

And want difference does it make what he called it?

"'mountains" of observations have been quietly disproved."

If you mean that science has advanced by abandoning what is false and keeping what is true, yes. But there are even more mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and no evidence falsifying it.

"This was Darwin's admitted fear, 'if anyone could demonstrate' the impossibility of gradual change leading to a major organ, 'my theory would collapse'
"Well, no one has ever demonstrated how a photo-sensitive cell could feasibly evolve into an eye."

Even if that was true – and it isn't, there are examples in Nature of intermediate stages of eyes – failure to demonstrate something is not the same as showing that it is impossible.

The rest of your post is more of the same, but here's the important part for you to take away, courtesy of the Good Doctor, Isaac Asimov:

"And in the third place, even if the concept of evolution were indeed insufficient, that would not itself prove the validity of the concept of the independent production of each species by a "creator." Other alternatives may exist, and the choice among them would have to rest on positive evidence. Thus, if a close investigation were to show that our notions of reproductive physiology are not entirely right, that would not of itself prove that babies are brought by the stork. They might, indeed, have been found under cabbage leaves or been delivered in the doctor's little black bag." — The Dangerous Myth of Creationism, Isaac Asimov, Penthouse, January 1982

titanbite writes:

in response to GalapagosPete:

Mr. Bova is saying that ignorance and promotion of superstition is bad public policy and can have tragic and long-lasting consequences.

If calling him names is the best response you can come up with, you are merely underscoring his point.

Exactly.

The only thing that will satisfy their self-deluded state of mind,time,just ask that old preacher predicting Armageddon,time taught him a valuable lesson.

That lesson,don't always believe your over-active imaginations.

To; Ben Bova

Thanks for the article Ben,no doubt,you knew the superstitious whackadoodles would come piling out of their pews to dog you about it and you wrote it anyway,that took some gut's,I like that.

bbrond writes:

in response to willfraser1:

This is going to be fun.
Mathematics and astronomy show us the universe is expanding. Collapsing it back according to the mathematics collapses it to a central mass somewhere around 14 BY BP or something like that. Check the literature for details.
OR, a big man with a beard magically created the universe. Sure. That makes a lot of sense. I'm going with the astrophysics and the astronomy sorry about that. I'm not saying I don't believe in a creator, because I do.
I just don't use the Bible (a 6000 year old text not meant to be used scientifically and written before there was any science to speak of other than the Greek mathematicians and philosophers etc) as a science text. Think about that. No proof? I'm goin with the math.
Next, ID. ID is "inextricably linked to its creationist roots". Federal court ruling Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005. Creationism is unconstitutional and is considered establishment of a religion with public funds. US Supreme Court 1987. We don't teach wacky anti science religion in science class. Sorry.
The earth is warming up according to a consensus of scientists. Sadly, thats what the data says. Thats not elitism. the data says,,,no. The work is widely accepted by science as valid.
I'm a conservative former Marine Corps infantry officer , not a lefty, but I do like to use my powers of reasoning. I'm certainly no elitist. Nor is the author.
Hes just making an observation that a lot of people like to stick with creeds or religious beliefs rather than reason and logic. Thats not elitist, its just, well, reason and logic.
I'm sorry you feel evolution has some basis in liberal politics. I thought it was just about ,well, evolution, the central theory in the physical and life sciences. According to a letter just sent by 75 Nobel laureates to the Louisiana legislature, evolution is the most significant field in the biological sciences today. They characterized intelligent design as religious pseudo science. So does the Catholic church(they say its neither science or religion).Neither the Lutheran, Anglican or mehtodist churches support ID either. Thats because its a PR stunt put on by the Discoveroids at the Dishonesty Institute (ok Discovery aka pronentists) You sound like you might be a smart person. Why don't you google creationism and read about it. Its an encyclopedia, you know? Then try googling intelligent design and read about that.Seriously. Then go to the NCSE web site and learn a little bit about science and evolution. Its a great site and very informative.
Then, go to whatever idiot IDer creationist nutso fundamentalist is telling you this ridiculous anti evolution fraud you're repeating
and try to help him or her. because , as the author of the article points out, whoever they are, they're very very very ignorant.
evolution ? Liberal politics? hello.!

Since you want to appeal to logic.....

The logic of 'time + chance = the orderly universe in which we live' requires a greater leap of faith than believing that our universe was intelligently designed.

I see nothing logical in making the assumption that our universe just exploded into being out of nothing by chance. Logic tells me that if there was ever a time that there was nothing, then there would still be nothing.

eagle1600 writes:

in response to GalapagosPete:

eagle1600, As for your post about Darwin, where it is not irrelevant it is false.

Examples:

"Origins has no explanations."

Sure it does. We're here, so obviously there's an explanation. Just because we may not have found it does not mean there isn't one.

"Darwin called evolution an 'hypothesis'."

Points for using "an" in front of "hypothesis." Way more demerits for not noticing that you quoted Darwin calling it his theory in the very next paragraph you posted.

And want difference does it make what he called it?

"'mountains" of observations have been quietly disproved."

If you mean that science has advanced by abandoning what is false and keeping what is true, yes. But there are even more mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and no evidence falsifying it.

"This was Darwin's admitted fear, 'if anyone could demonstrate' the impossibility of gradual change leading to a major organ, 'my theory would collapse'
"Well, no one has ever demonstrated how a photo-sensitive cell could feasibly evolve into an eye."

Even if that was true – and it isn't, there are examples in Nature of intermediate stages of eyes – failure to demonstrate something is not the same as showing that it is impossible.

The rest of your post is more of the same, but here's the important part for you to take away, courtesy of the Good Doctor, Isaac Asimov:

"And in the third place, even if the concept of evolution were indeed insufficient, that would not itself prove the validity of the concept of the independent production of each species by a "creator." Other alternatives may exist, and the choice among them would have to rest on positive evidence. Thus, if a close investigation were to show that our notions of reproductive physiology are not entirely right, that would not of itself prove that babies are brought by the stork. They might, indeed, have been found under cabbage leaves or been delivered in the doctor's little black bag." — The Dangerous Myth of Creationism, Isaac Asimov, Penthouse, January 1982

Pete,

Read Origins for yourself.

He describes change as slow, "imperceptible". To say "we are here" is purely inferential, it does not explain ANY of the plausible multi billion protein mutations channeled by natural selection that would have to occur to reach a species as ours.
To say "we are here" - is invoking the "gambler's fallacy" - reckless logic, not scientific.

Darwin's "hypothesis" he called a "rag of a hypothesis" he later called it a theory. Your objection is with him. I doubt he is in the position to respond.

Even more mistakes, no one has ever mapped the bio-chemical evolutionary pathway of the eye. Dawkins cites one study, soundly refuted in science journals. If you know of another (you don't- credibilty?)- why keep it a secret? Science is waiting for all of Darwin's major theses to be verified.

"intermediate" eyes w/o verified pathways is presumptuous. If they are not evolving, how can they be intermediate? What is possible is irrelevant, you have to prove what did happen. Lot's of things are possible. It is possible for Naples High to win its next 500 football games.

You then step into a logic trap - by saying if evolution as Darwin invokes is false - that does not mean a independent production..."creator" exists, Duh! No one said it did - why make an irrelevant point, especially when you should revisit the points you mangled e.g. "hypothesis" vs "theory" there is a major difference.

Look up "gambler's fallacy" (Wiki - if you must) used as an argument - you inadvertently proved my point.

You used Asimov's version of creationism - again, I did not either, so again, you make a point that does not need making. I disagree w/ creationism as Asimov describes. Odd that you quote a science fiction writer. And even odder - that you choose a moniker of one of Darwin's discredited icons.

eagle1600 writes:

Einstein said in Barnett's book (My 24 Hours...) that he had discovered a "superior reasoning power" behind the universe? Einstein called the power the "beginner". Hydrogen atoms do not reason.

Robert Newman, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Cornell. Fellow in the American Scientific Affiliation.

"My scientific background helps my theological understanding and improves my ability to present a scientifically credible apologetic for God's existence".

Morons???...

rbuonamici writes:

Loved the article Ben!!

eagle1610 writes:

in response to willfraser1:

This is going to be fun.
Mathematics and astronomy show us the universe is expanding. Collapsing it back according to the mathematics collapses it to a central mass somewhere around 14 BY BP or something like that. Check the literature for details.
OR, a big man with a beard magically created the universe. Sure. That makes a lot of sense. I'm going with the astrophysics and the astronomy sorry about that. I'm not saying I don't believe in a creator, because I do.
I just don't use the Bible (a 6000 year old text not meant to be used scientifically and written before there was any science to speak of other than the Greek mathematicians and philosophers etc) as a science text. Think about that. No proof? I'm goin with the math.
Next, ID. ID is "inextricably linked to its creationist roots". Federal court ruling Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005. Creationism is unconstitutional and is considered establishment of a religion with public funds. US Supreme Court 1987. We don't teach wacky anti science religion in science class. Sorry.
The earth is warming up according to a consensus of scientists. Sadly, thats what the data says. Thats not elitism. the data says,,,no. The work is widely accepted by science as valid.
I'm a conservative former Marine Corps infantry officer , not a lefty, but I do like to use my powers of reasoning. I'm certainly no elitist. Nor is the author.
Hes just making an observation that a lot of people like to stick with creeds or religious beliefs rather than reason and logic. Thats not elitist, its just, well, reason and logic.
I'm sorry you feel evolution has some basis in liberal politics. I thought it was just about ,well, evolution, the central theory in the physical and life sciences. According to a letter just sent by 75 Nobel laureates to the Louisiana legislature, evolution is the most significant field in the biological sciences today. They characterized intelligent design as religious pseudo science. So does the Catholic church(they say its neither science or religion).Neither the Lutheran, Anglican or mehtodist churches support ID either. Thats because its a PR stunt put on by the Discoveroids at the Dishonesty Institute (ok Discovery aka pronentists) You sound like you might be a smart person. Why don't you google creationism and read about it. Its an encyclopedia, you know? Then try googling intelligent design and read about that.Seriously. Then go to the NCSE web site and learn a little bit about science and evolution. Its a great site and very informative.
Then, go to whatever idiot IDer creationist nutso fundamentalist is telling you this ridiculous anti evolution fraud you're repeating
and try to help him or her. because , as the author of the article points out, whoever they are, they're very very very ignorant.
evolution ? Liberal politics? hello.!

Bible a 6,000 year old text???

There is science in the Bible - but it is not a science text. IT is accurate and predates astronomers.

The Big Bang was in the Bible 2,000 years before scientists knew it ever happened.

If you were to identify the 20 top tenets of Dawinism's "macro" evolution - you will see speculation (pre-biotic soup, specie transitionals) and some reasonable hypotheses. Darwin's natural selection is unassailable - but he overestimates in its extrapolation.

75 nobel laureates - must make it right??? You just take that as proof.

It is not all or nothing as most posters assume.

NCSE - great site? - too bad it adheres to methodological naturalism - a fancy term for "Darwinism at all costs".

Darwin's icons have not fared well in modern science.

TwoShirts writes:

What a great discussion. Thanks to the fantastic posters and well thought out positions.

I'll stick with arrogance and ignorance.

GalapagosPete writes:

in response to eagle1600:

Pete,

Read Origins for yourself.

He describes change as slow, "imperceptible". To say "we are here" is purely inferential, it does not explain ANY of the plausible multi billion protein mutations channeled by natural selection that would have to occur to reach a species as ours.
To say "we are here" - is invoking the "gambler's fallacy" - reckless logic, not scientific.

Darwin's "hypothesis" he called a "rag of a hypothesis" he later called it a theory. Your objection is with him. I doubt he is in the position to respond.

Even more mistakes, no one has ever mapped the bio-chemical evolutionary pathway of the eye. Dawkins cites one study, soundly refuted in science journals. If you know of another (you don't- credibilty?)- why keep it a secret? Science is waiting for all of Darwin's major theses to be verified.

"intermediate" eyes w/o verified pathways is presumptuous. If they are not evolving, how can they be intermediate? What is possible is irrelevant, you have to prove what did happen. Lot's of things are possible. It is possible for Naples High to win its next 500 football games.

You then step into a logic trap - by saying if evolution as Darwin invokes is false - that does not mean a independent production..."creator" exists, Duh! No one said it did - why make an irrelevant point, especially when you should revisit the points you mangled e.g. "hypothesis" vs "theory" there is a major difference.

Look up "gambler's fallacy" (Wiki - if you must) used as an argument - you inadvertently proved my point.

You used Asimov's version of creationism - again, I did not either, so again, you make a point that does not need making. I disagree w/ creationism as Asimov describes. Odd that you quote a science fiction writer. And even odder - that you choose a moniker of one of Darwin's discredited icons.

"He describes change as slow, "imperceptible"."
Yes, because it is.

"To say "we are here" is purely inferential...invoking the 'gambler's fallacy'"
No, we are here, so there is an explanation, and Darwin's was Natural Selection, which you would know if you actually read Origin of Species. And you obviously have no idea what the "Gambler's Fallacy" is.

"Darwin's "hypothesis" he called a 'rag of a hypothesis' he later called it a theory."
Yes, first hypothesis, then theory. That's how it works.

"...no one has ever mapped the bio-chemical evolutionary pathway of the eye...intermediate" eyes w/o verified pathways is presumptuous."
Not at all; we have good evidence that the eye evolved, including intermediate versions, which you can look up yourself.

"Dawkins cites one study, soundly refuted in science journals."
Creationist web sites are *not* science journals.

"You then step into a logic trap..."
Please specify which logic trap, and how it applies to what I wrote.

"Look up 'gambler's fallacy'"
You first; you still don't know what it means, since you believe it applies to anything I wrote.

"You used Asimov's version of creationism...I disagree w/creationism as Asimov describes."
What is "Asimov's version of creationism"? He mentions creationism but he doesn't describe it.

If you respond, please write in coherent sentences and support your assertions with explanations; just writing "you step into a logic trap" or "gambler's fallacy!" says nothing.

WCorvi writes:

in response to eagle1600:

Darwin did not "explain" he "described" change. Origins has no explanations.

Darwin called evolution an "hypothesis".

"mountains" of observations have been quietly disproved. The eye's evolutionary journey as speculated by Darwin & described by Dawkin's computer simulations, was slammed in a scientific journal as without merit. This was Darwin's admitted fear, "if anyone could demonstrate" the impossibility of gradual change leading to a major organ, "my theory would collapse"
Well, no one has ever demonstrated how a photo-sensitive cell could feasibly evolve into an eye.

Darwin called the fossil record "woefully inadequate", it still is.

Ben repeats assertions - yet never proffers specifics. Almost every transitional fossil (archteropterx, Lucy etc...)has been proven to be false or a mosaic.

No wonder, Ben never cites a specific piece of evidence because he knows there is creditable refutations available. He alludes - never specifies.

A lot of verbal attacks but no reasoned calm debate is possible with Bova. Science follows evidence not verbal assaults.

Will Bova write an article explaining the lack of "necessary" antecedent pre-Cambrian fossils? There are sufficient quantities of fossils but not the kind Darwinian theory depends upon.

Will he write regarding the statistical impossibility of DNA coded protein chain assimilation in relevant formations?

Will he write about the population explosion of modern homo rather than a gradual primate evolution?

Will he show us evolution "taking place before our eyes" Micro-evolution as he referred to does not satisfy. No new species occurs when bacteria resist antibiotics.The resistance is often invoked by repeated exposure (fruit flies).

Darwin looked at breeders, dogs are still dogs, pigeons still pigeons.

His Galapogos finches reverted back to their pre-drought appearance once the drought ended. They are identical to what he saw. Nothing changed. A five or seven inch beak is a normal specie variation. Is Willie Shoemaker a specie differential from Wilt Chamberlain?

Ben has criticized the Bible - w/o understanding it in the remotest sense.

Another question he can't answer; what new species has ever been introduced during modern human existence?

Well, _I_ can - see http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/200...

A new species of finches has evolved on the Galapagos Islands since Darwin. So much for your bible.

realthog writes:

in response to bbrond:

Since you want to appeal to logic.....

The logic of 'time + chance = the orderly universe in which we live' requires a greater leap of faith than believing that our universe was intelligently designed.

I see nothing logical in making the assumption that our universe just exploded into being out of nothing by chance. Logic tells me that if there was ever a time that there was nothing, then there would still be nothing.

"The logic of 'time + chance = the orderly universe in which we live'"

What in heck gave you the notion that the universe is orderly?

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features