Some people think that the creationist account of our origins somehow makes God look good. I disagree: it makes him look laughable. Think about it: if God is so "great", then surely he could have been subtle enough to design the laws of physics in such a way that evolution would eventually, some place in the universe, give rise to intelligent life. But no, creationists prefer to believe that god had to step in and manually do the work himself. The creationist finds the greatness of God in biology, only by belittling his ability as a physicist. Genesis is a creation myth, written at a time when we didn't know much about anything. Now we do know much about lots. Deal with it. Anyway, I'm quite well acquainted with creationist propaganda. It uses fancy phrases like 'evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics', only by completely misunderstanding the phenomenon in question. Creationist arguments tend to be outdated and well refuted by decades-old data, but we see, time and time again, the same old arguments being thrashed out by creationist preachers to deceive gullible audiences who don't know any better (or audiences all too eager to be deceived). It's certainly strange that creation "science" rests so much on personal incredulity of evolution, often for "moral" reasons! It isn't even close to being a contender to real science. Anyway, for those who can be bothered, I've posted on my blog the reasons I'm a Darwninian evolutionist. And no, I'm not going to suffer eternal torment, in case that's what anyone's thinking.
I'm afraid you may be under some misapprehension about the themes, content and arguments that are contained in the book 'Evolution On Trial'. The book has nothing to do with what is referred to as 'creationism' or 'creationist science'. In fact the book is not a defense of religion, theology, or any related topic.
'Evolution On Trial' is an investigation into science, evidence, and the hermeneutics of such issues. The book is a critical exploration of the many questions that arise in relation to various explanatory problems that are entangled in the issue of 'origins-of-life'.
Among other things, the book examines prebiotic chemistry, the formation of nucleic acids and proteins -- both structural as well as enzymatic, theories of protocell construction, cellular biochemistry, protein and lipid chemistry in relation to cell membrane dynamics, and quite a bit more. Darwin had nothing at all to say about any of these issues except by way of an allusion to a 'warm little pond' somewhere in which a happy and serendipitous confluence of events somehow took place ... the specifics of this 'somehow' have always been something of a mystery.
Before doing a critical review of a given work, it is useful to actually have read the work in question. However, 'Evolution On Trial, entails a fair amount of technical material, and, consequently, it requires a fair amount of attention on the part of a reader, and not everyone is prepared to devote the time and energy necessary to do this ... but if a person is prepared to stick with the point-counterpoint of the discussion, one may discover some possibilities that might not otherwise have appeared on one's conceptual radar screen.
I therefore apologise for my haste. I suppose i've become so accustomed to seeing books and articles bearing such names that i automatically thought that this book would have a similar flavour.
It's perfectly understandable. There's a lot of shoddy thought in this area. So it's easy to see why someone may think this is more of the same. Welcome to the blog.
4 comments:
Some people think that the creationist account of our origins somehow makes God look good. I disagree: it makes him look laughable. Think about it: if God is so "great", then surely he could have been subtle enough to design the laws of physics in such a way that evolution would eventually, some place in the universe, give rise to intelligent life. But no, creationists prefer to believe that god had to step in and manually do the work himself. The creationist finds the greatness of God in biology, only by belittling his ability as a physicist. Genesis is a creation myth, written at a time when we didn't know much about anything. Now we do know much about lots. Deal with it.
Anyway, I'm quite well acquainted with creationist propaganda. It uses fancy phrases like 'evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics', only by completely misunderstanding the phenomenon in question. Creationist arguments tend to be outdated and well refuted by decades-old data, but we see, time and time again, the same old arguments being thrashed out by creationist preachers to deceive gullible audiences who don't know any better (or audiences all too eager to be deceived). It's certainly strange that creation "science" rests so much on personal incredulity of evolution, often for "moral" reasons! It isn't even close to being a contender to real science. Anyway, for those who can be bothered, I've posted on my blog the reasons I'm a Darwninian evolutionist. And no, I'm not going to suffer eternal torment, in case that's what anyone's thinking.
Click here
I'm afraid you may be under some misapprehension about the themes, content and arguments that are contained in the book 'Evolution On Trial'. The book has nothing to do with what is referred to as 'creationism' or 'creationist science'. In fact the book is not a defense of religion, theology, or any related topic.
'Evolution On Trial' is an investigation into science, evidence, and the hermeneutics of such issues. The book is a critical exploration of the many questions that arise in relation to various explanatory problems that are entangled in the issue of 'origins-of-life'.
Among other things, the book examines prebiotic chemistry, the formation of nucleic acids and proteins -- both structural as well as enzymatic, theories of protocell construction, cellular biochemistry, protein and lipid chemistry in relation to cell membrane dynamics, and quite a bit more. Darwin had nothing at all to say about any of these issues except by way of an allusion to a 'warm little pond' somewhere in which a happy and serendipitous confluence of events somehow took place ... the specifics of this 'somehow' have always been something of a mystery.
Before doing a critical review of a given work, it is useful to actually have read the work in question. However, 'Evolution On Trial, entails a fair amount of technical material, and, consequently, it requires a fair amount of attention on the part of a reader, and not everyone is prepared to devote the time and energy necessary to do this ... but if a person is prepared to stick with the point-counterpoint of the discussion, one may discover some possibilities that might not otherwise have appeared on one's conceptual radar screen.
I therefore apologise for my haste. I suppose i've become so accustomed to seeing books and articles bearing such names that i automatically thought that this book would have a similar flavour.
lui,
It's perfectly understandable. There's a lot of shoddy thought in this area. So it's easy to see why someone may think this is more of the same. Welcome to the blog.
Take care,
Peace and blessings,
Bilquees
Post a Comment