Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9170 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Happy Birthday: ameliajack
Post Volume: Total: 917,263 Year: 4,520/9,624 Month: 295/1,096 Week: 0/119 Day: 0/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Representative Benjamin Waide and Creationism
alpha_mailman
Junior Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-20-2012


Message 1 of 5 (670835)
08-20-2012 7:12 AM


Hi all, I was browsing the news this morning and came across a story about a state representative from Kentucky kicking up a fuss about the state being mandated to teach Evolution for the ACT. He says Creationism should its fair shake and all that.
You'll note a few gems from Representative Waide. He says Evolution is 'made up' and 'the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny.'
Now I usually don't do this, but this bothered me so much that I found his site and wrote him a message regarding why I think he's incorrect.
I also kept my adoring Facebook public informed of this. When I included a link to the aforementioned story, someone commented, asking 'Are you absolutely sure about what Darwin actually did in the process of deriving his theory? Just curious.'
I am not exactly sure how to respond to this. I'm sure that Darwin studied a bit more than snow peas and Galapos animals, but I don't want to overextend myself. Any ideas?
Thanks!
Ry
19-1-14-9-20-25

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2012 11:49 AM alpha_mailman has not replied
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 08-20-2012 7:30 PM alpha_mailman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13070
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 2 of 5 (670845)
08-20-2012 8:33 AM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 5 (670859)
08-20-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by alpha_mailman
08-20-2012 7:12 AM


I also kept my adoring Facebook public informed of this. When I included a link to the aforementioned story, someone commented, asking 'Are you absolutely sure about what Darwin actually did in the process of deriving his theory? Just curious.'
I am not exactly sure how to respond to this. I'm sure that Darwin studied a bit more than snow peas and Galapos animals, but I don't want to overextend myself. Any ideas?
* Darwin carried out various experiments (though not on snow peas, that was Mendel!): for example, as his theory was originally intended to explain facts in biogeography, he was interested in the transport of seeds, and performed a large number of experiments to see how long various seeds could remain fertile and buoyant in salt water.
* He read voraciously. This is from the famous "like confessing a murder" letter to Hooker, fifteen years before the publication of the Origin of Species:
I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work & which I know no one individual who wd not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with distribution of Galapagos organisms &c &c & with the character of the American fossil mammifers, &c &c that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which cd bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural & horticultural books, & have never ceased collecting facts At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a tendency to progression adaptations from the slow willing of animals &c,but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from histhough the means of change are wholly so I think I have found out (here’s presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends.
* He was also able to pursue more directed lines of curiosity. Remember that he was already considered an eminent naturalist long before the publication of the Origin. Consequently, he could and did write to all the other eminent naturalists asking for this or that piece of information having a bearing on his developing ideas. His voluminous correspondence is full of this stuff.
For example (since I'm feeling lazy today) in the same letter to Hooker he asks:
Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of plant, peculiar to any isld, as Galapagos, St. Helena or New Zealand, where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds,such hooks as if observed here would be thought with justness to be adapted to catch into wool of animals.
With the benefit of hindsight we can see why he wanted to know this. Hooker would have been baffled.
I hope this helps.
19-1-14-9-20-25
Sanity?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alpha_mailman, posted 08-20-2012 7:12 AM alpha_mailman has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (670895)
08-20-2012 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by alpha_mailman
08-20-2012 7:12 AM


Isn't there already another thread about this?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alpha_mailman, posted 08-20-2012 7:12 AM alpha_mailman has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 5 (670900)
08-20-2012 7:58 PM


The ealier topic...
... is Kentucky Republicans Are Idiots In Unexpected Twist - Go there to carry on.
Closing this one down.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024