Evolution lesson

Florida Citizens for Science vice-president Jonathan Smith once again pens a newspaper column, this time honoring Darwin Day with a lesson about evidences for evolution all around us: See Evolution Evidence in Daily Life.

As a society, we remain ambivalent toward the subject, not realizing that trying to equate Darwin with our modern-day understanding of evolution is rather like associating the Wright brothers to space flight.

If, as a nation, we wish to compete in a rapidly advancing technological world arena, we should take note of the advice offered by Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

In America, the time for that change is long overdue.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Evolution lesson

  1. Jonathan Smith says:

    I was a little annoyed this morning when I saw the placing of my Op Ed. It was formatted in a Pro/ Con context with a “Con” editorial by a creationist placed directly below. I was not informed of this by the editor, so my article was not an argument in favor of evolution, just recognition of Darwin Day. Of course it was the usual creationist troupe – no transitional fossils, irreducible complexity.http://www.theledger.com/article/20130212/COLUMNISTS03/130219838/1042/columnists?Title=Con-Four-Holes-in-Theory-Sink-Evolution I sent the editor an e- mail pointing out my concerns and stating if the newspaper would sponsor a debate I would be more than happy to participate.

  2. Brandon Haught says:

    Wow, I had not realized that. Reading his article, it becomes very clear that he either truly has no idea what he’s talking about or he’s a professional liar. Yes, Darwin did pose “the incredible complexity of such organs as the eye” but that was merely a statement of a problem he knew others would bring up. He then went on to explain how it could come about. I HATE when creationists rattle on about “Darwin said this” while leaving out the whole story. Isn’t there something in Christianity about bearing false witness?

  3. Ivorygirl says:

    Thanks Jonathan, I read your editorial then tried to read the other article,but gave up before I reached the end. As you said, same old creationist lies and quote mining. On the good side for Darwin Day see this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI19y5Nsy1s

  4. Jonathan Smith says:

    If you notice there are a lot of negative comments on the creationist article and not any on mine, which is suprising for Polk County. Perhaps we are making grounds little by little. I have sent out a challenge to Mr Joseph personally to debate me. Lets see if he has the intestinal fortitude !!

  5. Pierce R. Butler says:

    [from Jonathan Smith’s op-ed:] … no other scientific theory remains as poorly understood or woefully unappreciated as evolution…

    Not too sure about that one – science has a LOT of under-understood theories…

  6. Chris says:

    from Jonathan Smith’s op-ed:] … no other scientific theory remains as poorly understood or woefully unappreciated as evolution…

    I think in the US evolution is fairly well understood. Perhaps it’s not understood in every aspect, but the overall the presentation of biological change over millions of years from a single living common ancestor to today’s present array of life is inescapable. The problem isn’t underappreciation or misunderstanding, but the problem lies within the understanding of the full blown theory. The science of evolution has validity and faith based foolishness combined which has produced a myth akin to a pagan religion, rather than a valuable scientific idea. Any question pointed at evolution’s unobserved claims is called anti-science and quickly dismissed as ignorance or religious intolerance. Inhibiting questions and crediting the theoretical pond scum to people aspect of the theory for producing medicines, agriculture and today’s conveniences further places science in general, questionable. Joe Joseph has hit the nail on the head, “The purpose of true science education in schools should be to empower students to use critical thinking, make logical deductions and consider alternative explanations. But Darwin’s philosophy of evolution resulted in the erosion of sound science education and eliminated critical-thinking skills from the classrooms.”

  7. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris’
    You’re so full of crap, if they gave you an enema all that would be left is your shoes.
    Let’s assume that you’re right about this.
    Let’s assume that evolution is flawed and is not scientifically able to explain anything.
    So, tell us how your alternative (Goddidit) is scientifically able to?
    Better yet, give us an example of something, anything, which your alternative can explain.
    Tell us, given your alternative, how (or why or when or where) it turns out that humans have the generic, inferior vertebrate eye, rather than eyes like insects, or like octopuses, Or that humans are most similar (among all of today’s kinds of life) to chimps and other apes.
    Until then, go away and lie for Jesus some place else.

  8. Jonathan Smith says:

    Chris,
    I’m not sure what you are trying to say in these two sentences, could you be a little more lucid?
    “The science of evolution has validity and faith based foolishness combined which has produced a myth akin to a pagan religion, rather than a valuable scientific idea.”
    “Inhibiting questions and crediting the theoretical pond scum to people aspect of the theory for producing medicines, agriculture and today’s conveniences further places science in general, questionable.”

  9. Ivorygirl says:

    Jonathan,

    Don’t waste your time, Chris doesn’t have a clue what he’s saying either. He’s just half assed regurgitating crap from some “lying for Jesus” web site.

  10. Chris says:

    Jonathan,

    I enjoyed the Introduction to Genetics and Evolution you posted. It was very interesting and it gave me a better understanding of how evolution at the genetic level can be shown to support common ancestry. The idea that common ancestry extends to a single living source through time should seem far less likely than ever with the complexity involved in every living thing. If mathematical odds were to be realized in the evolution of genetics, the whole idea would be canned. What was surprising to me was the amount of ‘we believe’ type comments which were transfered to the ‘this is what happened’ column. To me, Noor inadvertently pretty well demonstrated that the mechanisms supposedly used by evolution as a means of producing the array of life found on the planet is a belief without adequate proof.

    Simply put, I see two components to biological evolution as it is taught. One part being real science, observable speciation and all the knowledge that goes with it. The other part is an unobservable, untestable, unscientific religious belief that is fraudulently delivered as part of biological science.

    I see both science and religion as an attempt to explain things but there is little if anything compatible between the two.

    No scientific belief can ever be considered as absolutely true. Beliefs can change instantly with new evidence. Science is constantly changing, improving, updating and discarding unworkable ideas. Science has a method of review, prompting questions (the scientific method). Science encourages critical thinking, logical deductions and alternative explanations. Science is wide open, not restricted by ideological dogma. Science is inclusive, gathering all relevant data for review.

    Religion, in most cases, is considered the truth with no exceptions. Most religions, with the exception of the Bible, forbid evaluation or investigation of contradicting information. Religion is not to be questioned, just believed. Religion produces doctrines to be followed and accepted, regardless of how illogical they may be. Religions use education, programming and missionaries to promote and recruit new believers. Without the belief in a particular religion, you might go to hell, have crop failure, be unsuccessful in life. Religion must spread the word to become a martyr (blow yourself up), get right with God, or cast a spell for the good the children, mankind and future of the country. Religion has a central or official belief of doctrine or dogma which cannot be replaced. Religions have the prospect of reward or punishment for the believer and non-believer. Religion is exclusive and non-compatible with other beliefs.

    The belief that all life has arisen from a single common ancestor is exclusive. It’s not to be questioned. It’s a doctrine the cannot be replaced, it’s central to the entire theory of common ancestry. Just like the idea that aliens seeded the planet with life, molecule to man evolution has not been observed, cannot be repeated, it cannot physically conform to the scientific method, it just must be believed. Restrictions are in place which deny the questioning of or the inclusion of any other possibility. The belief is widely promoted through education and is considered a prerequisite for success. Without the acceptance of evolution, mankind is doomed. It absolutely must be accepted for the good of the children, mankind and the future of the country. Believers consider themselves as near intellectual giants while non-believers are thought of as morons, idiots, liars for Jesus.

    Every single Citizens for Science organization across the country has been established to protect and promote the idea man has common ancestor with the apes and the first unidentified supposed single celled organism. No other belief or idea in biology is in question or needs protection.

    Darwin’s phylogenic tree and the attachments which have followed are religious icons, plain and simple pure religion, nothing else.

  11. Jonathan Smith says:

    Chris,

    What my article attempted to explain is that the theoretical and empirical evidence for the importance of natural selection has been well established by the last one hundred and fifty years of research. Unfortunately, your comments have presented no evidence for the existence of any barrier that prevents this process from producing the diversity of life and no reason to suppose that one exists. You also have presented no alternative to natural selection, let alone any evidence for that alternative. In short, all you have is “I don’t want to believe it, so it isn’t true”. You want to quote mine scientists who disagree with you, fine, just don’t expect me or anyone else to be fooled. You don’t like atheists, fine; the evidence is clear no matter who presents it. You have some religious agenda to push, that’s ok; just don’t pretend it’s scientifically motivated. You need to believe that natural selection doesn’t work, fine; if you refuse to comprehend the evidence. I have to say that your efforts to convince others that evolution is “just a religion” are somewhat disingenuous, after all, you, yourself laid out the differences in your post.

    I can only speak for the Florida Citizens for Science (and perhaps you should read our statement of intent). Our sole objective is to promote recognized scientific concepts in the science classroom and evolution is one of those concepts.

  12. Ivorygirl says:

    So Chris
    You assert that design is evident in nature. I assert that you cannot back up that claim with any scientific evidence or objective methodology to detect or measure that assertion.
    So go ahead; tell us how you can detect the presence (or absence) of design in a tornado. Tell us how we can objectively find out how little or how much design goes into the production of a snowflake.
    You can’t, can you? All you can do is to spout your pathetic religious delusions and declare, Goddidit!!
    All your hand waving and baseless assertions are meaningless. You refuse to learn and simply repeat your mindless mistakes over and over. You are not concerned with evidence or reality; only your own incredulity.

  13. Chris says:

    Jonthan

    Your article was a good one. But the comment that drew a question for me was, “In America, the time for that change is long overdue.” In siting that we stand as 33rd among nations who accept evolution as embarrassing, I take it you would like to see a more vigorous presentation of the theory and natural selections positive impact. I can agree with that, but not with the fantasy that natural selection can make farm animals out of microbes. As you already know, the problem is not the theory but rather the insistence it is the only acceptable explanation for mans arrival on the planet.

    Those who accept evolution’s extreme of molecule-to-man proposition say there is no debate and those who recognize religion site the belief in the unobservable idea as religion. But in reality, similarities of the neo-Darwinian synthesis can be found in the philosophical writings of Epicures 341-270 BC. There is not much new here.

    It is time for a change and it’s time scientists focus on science. I do happen to agree with Joe Joseph’s article that Darwin’s philosophy of evolution has done and continues to do damage to our society. Molecule-to-man evolution is not a recognized scientific reality among all scientists nor among the bulk of the population, many concluding it has no place any where near science at all. This should cause concern for Citizens for Science Groups if good science education is the goal, and not the protection or promotion of some philosophy or religious humanist doctrine.

Comments are closed.