Sanity versus "biblical truth"

[matgb]

Quickie, aimed specifically at two people^[1] but of general interest to all who value decent science education, nannyo excellent post about her encounter with the people that run the Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm. I am very scared that that place exisits within the UK. On a similar vein, those that haven't seen it should probably read Scalzi's report of his visit to the Creation Museum. Does anyone have any brain bleach?

Heh: I do like this from the comments at Scalzi's report though:

Galatians 4:24
These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants.

So, um, the bible, if literally true, is literally a metaphor according to St Paul?

ETA: innerbrat has put on her day job hat and got into contact with them, removing the bit that she studies evolutionary morphology from her NHM email sigline. Go Debi!

---

[1] innerbrat and davegodfrey based on their regular postings on such topics.

Comments

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

what sort of loopholes?

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

There's plenty of stuff out there about the lack of transitional forms in the development of man, for instance. Archaeological finds have long cast doubt on the traditional Darwinian view of a mechanical progression of species via survival of the fittest. Darwin himself was adamant that natural selection was never meant to be the only mechanism of evolution, although this has pretty much become evolutionist dogma. The range and depth of archaeological evidence against traditional evolutionary theory is rather beyond the scope of a quick comment here for discussion - just run a google search or something. A second point would be the lack of a concept of 'life' in evolutionary theory - nobody can really say how life emerges, although religions obviously try to. A third point would be natural selection's focus on the individual. Weaker or inadequate individuals in a species die out as the stronger survive, and the mutations that create stronger individuals go on to propagate the species. However, this hardly explains the collective activities of some species, such as ants, or flattid bugs, that appear to operate according to some sort of hive mentality where individuals count for less than the group.

A lot more could be said about each of these points but that's as best I can summarise them here. The point is not that evolution is discredited, but that it is open to questioning and refinement as a theory - it shouldn't simply be held as scientific fact.

[innerbrat]

There's plenty of stuff out there about the lack of transitional forms in the development of man, for instance.
Define 'transitional'. There are plenty of hominid species that except mosaics of charcaters from different groups.

Archaeological finds have long cast doubt on the traditional Darwinian view of a mechanical progression of species via survival of the fittest.
Which finds?

The range and depth of archaeological evidence against traditional evolutionary theory is rather beyond the scope of a quick comment here for discussion - just run a google search or something.
No. It's your claim. You back it up. Give an archaeological (or palaeontological) find that disproves evolution.

A second point would be the lack of a concept of 'life' in evolutionary theory
Biologists generally accept 'life' to imply self-replicating organic matter. How is that a lack of concept?

A third point would be natural selection's focus on the individual. Weaker or inadequate individuals in a species die out as the stronger survive, and the mutations that create stronger individuals go on to propagate the species. However, this hardly explains the collective activities of some species, such as ants, or flattid bugs, that appear to operate according to some sort of hive mentality where individuals count for less than the group.
There is plenty of knowledge about the evolution of altruism.

You appear to be simply recycling old, worn thin soundbites from poorly researched Creationist sites. You also misused the word theory as professoryaffle explains below.

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

No, no and NO! Crikey. At what point did I try to 'disprove' evolution?

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

Well you did say that evolution had plenty of loopholes, and were asked what they were. You gave a list of things that have either been thoroughly debunked or are very active areas of research, where we have lots of interesting ideas being tested.

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

You gave a list of things that have either been thoroughly debunked

What has been 'thoroughly debunked' in what I say above?

or are very active areas of research, where we have lots of interesting ideas being tested.

Yeah, and where did I say otherwise?

I'm not making any sort of Creationist argument or attempting to discredit evolution as a theory. I said it's a theory with loopholes in it and, as you say, there are active areas of research that presumably are looking to flesh out the theory even further. Where do we disagree, exactly?

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

Wot innerbrat said

Darwin himself was adamant that natural selection was never meant to be the only mechanism of evolution, although this has pretty much become evolutionist dogma.

No it hasn't. Darwin came up with Sexual Selection, which has become an active area of research since the New Synthesis in the 1930s. Mootoo Kimura's Neutral theory of genetic evolution is very important in DNA classification studies. Then there's non-adaptationism, beloved of Stephen Jay Gould, and evo-devo.

But at the root of all this is the idea that organisms vary, and these variations have different fitnesses which affect their reproductive success.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Fossils show that living organisms change through time. Natural Selection (in addition to the things I mentioned) is the model that explains how this happenned.

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

Aye, at the base level of the idea that organisms vary through time, evolution is fact (according to some). The neo-Darwinian takes on this are theories. Theories are open to question and refinement, but I'm not sure how a fact is also a theory unless the terms of debate altogether are inadequate.

Mrs. Darwin

Went to the Zoo.
I said to Him-
Something about that Chimpanzee over there
reminds me of you.

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

I'm referring to "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". One is the observation that X happens. The other is the explanation for why X happens.