Over at The Loom this morning I caught this interesting blog by Carl Zimmer about a new movie called "Flock Of Dodos". After reading his review of the movie, you can check out my own response to it at The Loom, or just keep reading this!
(From my Comment at The Loom):
The review gave me a bit of an epiphany on why, 150 years later, Creationists still insist on using the names, "Darwin", "Darwinism", "Darwinist" in their arguments. I used to just kind of shrug, belwildered, that they would continue to talk about him, as if 150 years of continuing science and discoveries are somehow less important for them to try to counter. I suppose I just assumed that maybe they found it easier to critize the errors in Darwin, and act like it was modern evolutionary theory, than to talk about EVERYTHING SINCE. Now, I'm not so sure.
Charles Darwin was a scientist, but not as we know science in 2006. He was more of a gentlemen naturalist who, when it came time to publish his findings, did so for a wide audience, not just for fellow scientists. And stylistically, he was gentle, thoughtful, sensitive (to those he KNEW would be upset by his theory) and PERSUASIVE.
Even though certain aspects of his theory have been since shown to be incorrect, other points improved upon, etc. the FACTS of the basic underlying principles are both undeniable to this day, AND presented in a way that any thoughtful NON-scientist can appreciate and understand. He is STILL the worst nightmare of modern-day Creationist/I.D. PR departments. Even though the science of evolution is only stronger than it was (by far) than back in 1859, the personality of Darwin, combined with the basic theory (decent through modification by Natural Selection) is to this day a much more difficult PR problem (winning the "hearts and minds") than modern evolutionary theory presented by condescending or elitist educators and scientists.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Darwin and Creationists
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi John,
I like Darwin; think he was a great scientist, and generated a great theory, supported by evidence.
I'm not a creationist, because I don't think the Bible is a scientific document. So, if somebody says, there is no evolution, because it conflicts with the account of Genesis, well, my response is, that's not really a scientific opinion.
I do think, though, that Darwinian theorists have greatly overreached with TOE -- but, it's still a good theory, in my humble opinion.
Barnes, Hank
Hi Hank. Like your work. You raise many, MANY interesting points and certainly helped get me out of my AIDS lethargy.
I look at "Darwinian" as an opening, not as a finish. Of course theorist who tried to cram evolution into a strictly original Darwinian construct would be wrong, if not foolish. We know too much more now. Remember, Darwin barely knew what a cell was, let alone DNA. But it was a great start for science, opening a new door where theories could flourish without fear of Creationist retributions. Seems at times like we haven't come very far, but we have. 150 is nada, in geological time - even in human history.
J,
I hate agreeing with people too much, John, so I'm thinking of clever tricks, diversions and obfuscations to distance myself from your views -- but, alas, I can't.
You are too darn reasonable:)
Hank
p.s. I view ID as more philosophy of science, than pure science, because I don't think it is falsifiable -- a fatal flaw in my view for any scientific theory.
But, these militant evolutionists -- mostly obnoxious college professors -- who think Darwin has replaced God, are nearly as bad as these Marxists from the 60's.
Hank - email me sometime. Love to chat.
Post a Comment