Saturday, Jul 5, 2008
Evolutionary theory asks "how," not "if"; give Superchunk a chance; generous dad is being suckered.
Aug 26, 1999 | Counter-evolutionary
BY MARK WALLACE
(08/19/99)
Mark Wallace correctly identifies the difference between creationists and Darwinists as personal, rather than scientific, in nature. Along the way, though, he repeats verbatim the creationist saw that "Darwin's theory remains just that: a theory."
Quoting Mark Isaac, in the Frequently Asked Questions list for talk.origins: "Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong ... A theory, in the scientific sense, is 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena' ... The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty."
I am disappointed that something so basic should need explaining to one who has taken it upon himself to write about the debate surrounding evolution. Not understanding the meaning of the term "theory" is an admission of complete ignorance, not just of evolution, or even biology, but of science as a whole. We expect that those who write for popular publications about art, music, politics, etc., know at least the freshman-year rudiments of their subject; why do we so rarely make the same demand for science?
-- Keith Adams
I am an evangelical Christian (Presbyterian) who believes in the authority of the Bible and that mankind was created in the image of God with inherent worth and dignity. With that said, I am just as dismayed as you are by what has happened in Kansas, although I'm sure for different reasons.
What upsets me most in this instance is that this kind of decision discourages thoughtful debate on the subject of our origin. Because of this, all Christians get lumped into a certain category of closing our minds and believing in, as you put it, a "humbug" behind the curtain.
Books by people like Whitcomb and Morris who use sloppy science to prove creationism do no help to the truth of our beginnings, and these men do not speak for all believers in God, as Wallace suggests.
I ask you to not paint all Christians as ignorant zealots who will not engage in debate with thinking people. I am not proud of what my Christian brothers and sisters have done in Kansas because it does not allow for the engagement of ideas in thoughtful debate and discourse, but it does not help matters either when writers like you act like these people in Kansas speak for every Christian.
-- Doug Perry
Raleigh, N.C.
Statements that evolution is "only a theory" strike me as curious, like saying that magnetism (for example) is "only a theory". The consensus view is surely that magnetism is a natural property of certain materials, under certain circumstances. Theories of magnetism can then be thought up to try and explain how and why what we observe occurs.
Similarly, the evidence should be overwhelming that the life that inhabits the earth has changed hugely over time, and that this change has taken place over millions of years. Dating can be a crude process, but there are sufficient fossils dated by methods based on radioactive decay to conclusively state that there have been a succession of epochs dominated by life forms that simply no longer exist. Although it is true that it is impossible to strictly prove that there were no birds, no mammals or whatever, before a certain time, claiming this displays an ignorance of what really constitutes a scientific fact, which is attained by an accumulation of evidence. Statements held to such a strict standard of truth do not exist outside mathematics or philosophy, and creationists employing such tactics should not pretend that they are engaged in scientific debate; they are not. Continual change of life on earth forms the process of evolution; one can then try to form a theory of evolution, which explains the observed facts.
Argument between "evolutionists" and "creationists" is then not so much between two groups with competing explanations for the same thing, but rather between one group that thinks there is something that needs explaining and another group that firmly believes there is not.
-- S. A. Gardiner
Fear, marketing and Microsoft
BY KAITLIN QUISTGAARD
(08/19/99)
Surprise, surprise! Microsoft doesn't play nice. For at least a decade computer companies have been waging a battle for market share by playing on the emotions of potential customers. Well, actually, they have been playing primarily upon one emotion: fear. Don't buy that hardware, you won't be able to get any software for it. Don't use a computer with one of those other chips, everyone else uses ours. Better upgrade now, or else you'll be left behind. Don't use that OS, the company that made it will go out of business any day now!
Since customers are becoming increasingly sophisticated, Microsoft has to find a new way to sell with fear: threatening the customer with legal action. Should we be disappointed? Yes. Should we be surprised? No.
-- Erik Westlund
Get Salon in your mailbox!