Letters to the Editor
farnsworth
Published Letters: 449 Editor's Choice: 21
-
Evolution has never been tested
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason Evolution is a theory and not a law is that it has never been tested. In order for a theory to become a law, it must be repeatedly tested in such a way that failing the test disproves the theory.
Evolution is not easily testable. At least, not easily testable over the span of time that has passed since the publication of The Origin of Species, still less than 150 years.
It requires much more than a single lifetime within a species. It requires many generations. It requires taking a species in its current habitat and applying stresses to that habitat. Stresses that can lead to the expression of different traits, to the extent that the new "species" expressing the new traits is no longer reproductively viable with the original species.
We don't know enough about evolution to say that a certain amount of time or a certain number of generations would be required. We would have to be able to say definitively that failure to create a new species after such a period disproves evolution before we would be able to say that we have proven evolution.
Absent that disprovable experimental evidence, what we are left with is a theory. Granted, it is a theory that is more widely accepted than any other available explanation. But just because we don't have a better theory at the moment doesn't mean we have the right answer.
I am not arguing for or against evolution here, merely trying to put the argument in perspective.
-
I left one important thing out
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The disprovable test for evolution has to be reproducible. Anyone who correctly sets up the experiment must get the same results.
-
@ Amity
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]None of those are theories anymore, nor is evolution.
Until there are reproducible disprovable experiments that successfully establish a quantifiable process for evolution, it is and will remain a theory. This is how the scientific method works.
If we ignore the scientific method, we are no better than those who claim an unseeable, robe and sandal clad, bearded old man made it happen by waving his hands.
-
How depressing (a response, in part, to bigdakine)
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is no wonder that millions of Americans don't believe in evolution, if this is an example of the arguments for it.
I write a post that is, essentially, a defense against the argument that "evolution is just a theory." It was meant to debunk and disarm one of the standard creationist attacks against evolution.
What response does it get? Virtually nothing, except bigdakine, supposedly arguing for evolution, basically by telling me I don't know what I am talking about.
First he calls me a creationist, despite the fact that nothing I wrote can in any way be construed to imply even slightly that I am a proponent of divine intervention. My assertion that evolution is not easily testable is called "balderdash," refuted based on some unexplained claim about genetics and the fossil record somehow being a test of evolution.
Then, again I am called a creationist, and described as "so confused [I] can barely express [myself]," because I discuss how evolution can only be tested over multiple lifetimes of the species under study. When I note the lack of actual experimental evidence confirming evolution, I am told to "put down [my] crack pipe," because tons of such evidence exists. Although not one ounce of the "tons of evidence" is cited.
I am accused of failing to understand science, and therefore being unqualified to discuss it.
If this is the sort of arguments that evolution supporters routinely put forth, how can anyone be surprised that there are disbelievers?
I believe that evolutionary theory is on the right track. I don't believe it has all the answers. But I also believe having people who clearly don't know what they are talking about arguing ineptly for it is actually detrimental to the long-term goal of basing our world view on science rather than mythology.
-
Coincidence?
[Read the article: I can't stand losing my beauty as I age!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it just random chance that this is the letter Tennis answers on the same day that Salon runs the lead story Sexiest Man Living 2007?
-
Come on people, please!
[Read the article: McCain raising funds off of "B-word" incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reactions to this incident are clear evidence of the Media's Liberal Bias.
The fact that none of you seem to be able to understand that is clear evidence of your complicity.
-
Our next president?
[Read the article: Huckabee: God wants us to fight global warming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This guy can get the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party behind him, unlike Giuliani or Romney.
The Democrats seem poised to pick Clinton, the candidate who will bring Republicans to the polls in record numbers. And Democrats have been demonstrating for years that trying to beat the Republicans with Republican Lite is a recipe for failure.
Nothing I do or say will have any effect on who is elected. Including my vote. I am just guessing, but this guy is the only one I see so far who could go all the way.
O God, please save us from your followers.
-
Je ne sais QUOI
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Apprenez la langue, ou utilisez l'anglais.
-
Wondering whether Kamiya spends any time around black people
[Read the article: Is race dying? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spend a semester in any high school that has more than, say, 15% black students. Urban, suburban, rural, doesn't matter.
After that, such an inane question as Is race dying? would never even occur to you.