Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Friday, September 03, 2004
Evolution vs. Creationism
The people at The Scientist have, yet again, done their job and alerted me to an interesting topic. For (apparently) the first time ever there is an article published in a peer-reviewed journal arguing for Creationism and against Evolution. Although the journal is a minor one (with a whopping 0.284 impact factor), the appearance of such an article is no small thing.
While I am a staunch supporter of the theory of Evolution, I am actually happy to see such an article in a scientific journal. If nothing else, this will spark debate and will leave a publicly accessible record. With any luck, we might even see the two sides find mutual understanding, if not agreement.
I haven't yet had a chance to read the whole thing, but I have a feeling that Dr. Meyer will attack the typical weak points of Evolution.* While I find the debate fascinating, it is ultimately frustrating that each side's arguments eventually boil down to simple belief. On the pro-Evolution, it is a belief in the adequacy of Nature to produce the abundance of life we see around us, while the Creationism adherents believe there must be something 'else' taking an active role.
I find myself on the side of Evolution, if for no other reason, because the relationship between Science and Religion can be characterized as the latter providing an explanation until the former figures out what's really going on. That may seem a bit harsh, but I think it's true and I can think of very few reasons why this rule should be broken in the case of Evolution.
----------
*The weak points of Evolution, in my mind, fall into two categories: 1) Lack of a complete fossil record and 2) Lack of mechanism for the generation of new species. Both can be explained away, or over emphasized, depending on your previously established point of view.
|
While I am a staunch supporter of the theory of Evolution, I am actually happy to see such an article in a scientific journal. If nothing else, this will spark debate and will leave a publicly accessible record. With any luck, we might even see the two sides find mutual understanding, if not agreement.
I haven't yet had a chance to read the whole thing, but I have a feeling that Dr. Meyer will attack the typical weak points of Evolution.* While I find the debate fascinating, it is ultimately frustrating that each side's arguments eventually boil down to simple belief. On the pro-Evolution, it is a belief in the adequacy of Nature to produce the abundance of life we see around us, while the Creationism adherents believe there must be something 'else' taking an active role.
I find myself on the side of Evolution, if for no other reason, because the relationship between Science and Religion can be characterized as the latter providing an explanation until the former figures out what's really going on. That may seem a bit harsh, but I think it's true and I can think of very few reasons why this rule should be broken in the case of Evolution.
----------
*The weak points of Evolution, in my mind, fall into two categories: 1) Lack of a complete fossil record and 2) Lack of mechanism for the generation of new species. Both can be explained away, or over emphasized, depending on your previously established point of view.
|
