In talk.origins Dan Clore <clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>http://mediamatters.org/
>CNN's Lou Dobbs offered his own "facts" on evolution
>During a debate on "the origin of life," CNN host Lou Dobbs
>stated on his own authority: "The fact is that evolution,
>Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous
>and defined science that has testable results within it."
>The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which advises the
>federal government on "scientific and technical matters,"
>disagrees with Dobbs' "facts" about evolution.
I do believe that I've pointed out that we've already
lost the battle, and most folks haven't yet realized
that there was one.
---- Paul J. Gans
>The NAS considers evolution "the central unifying concept of
>biology" and "one of the strongest and most useful
>scientific theories we have." The academy's 1999 book
>Science and Creationism (National Academies Press, 1999)
>further states:
>"Progress in science consists of the development of better
>explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists
>never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and
>final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn
>out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or
>experiments. Yet many scientific explanations have been so
>thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with
>great confidence.
>"The theory of evolution is one of these well-established
>explanations. An enormous amount of scientific investigation
>since the mid-19th century has converted early ideas about
>evolution proposed by Darwin and others into a strong and
>well-sup****ted theory. Today, evolution is an extremely
>active field of research, with an abundance of new
>discoveries that are continually increasing our
>understanding of how evolution occurs."
>NAS is comprised of 2,000 members and 350 foreign
>associates, including more than 190 Nobel Prize winners.
>With Dobbs expressing skepticism on the scientific validity
>of evolution, the debate on the May 12 edition of CNN's Lou
>Dobbs Tonight appeared to be stacked 3 to 1 against those
>embracing "the central unifying concept of biology." The
>discussion featured "intelligent design" proponent Jonathan
>Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute;
>creationism proponent John Morris, president of the
>Institute for Creation Research; and Florida State
>University philosophy of science professor Michael Ruse, who
>is critical of allowing intelligent design and creationism
>to be taught alongside of, or in place of, evolution. From
>the May 12 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight:
>DOBBS: The fact is that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully
>explained or completely rigorous and defined science that
>has testable results within it. Like a --
>RUSE: Now, who says that? Is that you?
>DOBBS: I do. I do.
>[...]
>DOBBS: And, in that degree, if one moves aside from the
>issue and suggests that creationism be taught within a
>religious class, within the schools, and one looks at the
>prospect of intelligent design and evolution, with critical
>thought -- because you say life was 4-and-a-half billion
>years ago, the planet began 4-and-a-half billion years ago
>-- we continue to change our views scientifically on when
>what occurred, that is, in terms of missing links within the
>family tree of life on this planet. Is there anything wrong
>with criticizing evolution in your minds?
>? N.C.
>Friday May 13, 2005
>--
>Dan Clore
>My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
>Lord We?rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
>News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
>immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
>-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
|
