I go to a lot of the public talks at The Royal Society, but this one promises to be something special - Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right (via Dave). According to The Guardian, "the award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society's event in April". Should get pretty lively!
(Not, I must point out, that I'm a huge fan of Steve Jones. I'm very much with Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker rather than Dr. Jones and Stephen Jay Gould on the sociobiology issue. But when it comes to putting the boot into the superstitious, we are all on the same side.)
Posted to Science and technology by Simon Brunning at February 21, 2006 01:51 PMNice one - will try to make it :-)
Posted by: Mark Matthews on February 21, 2006 02:33 PMHope to see you there. Tho' I think that getting creationists to argue their case rationally is unlikely to say the least :)
Agreed - 'cos their case isn't rational. ;-)
Posted by: Simon Brunning on February 21, 2006 02:57 PMCreationism being wrong does *NOT* imply that evolution is right and that it is a decent explaination for the origin of life. That's not being rational. That's being passionate, really. Let's face the facts: evolutionism as the only explanation for the origin of life is pretty much nonsense too. The "1: Goo, 2: Mutations, 3: Humans!" theory is plain stupid.
Feel free to portrait me as a religious fanatical guy, but let me remind you that I'm not a creatinist. IMO we are not even close to having a clue about the origin of life.
Evolution doesn't *claim* to explain the origin of life, so that's something of a straw-man argument. Darwinian Evolution explains the, uh, evolution of life once it *had* started.
Also, your "2: Mutations, 3: Humans!" is a grotesque caricature of Neodarwinism. Mutation is a very small (but important) mart of the process - recombination provides the bulk of the diversity upon which natural selection can operate - and you don't mention natural selection at all. That's the mechanism which directs the process of evolution.
I suggest you read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", or some such. When you understand what you are talking about, *then* come back and tell me whether you think it's plausible or not.
Posted by: Simon Brunning on February 21, 2006 08:26 PMReminds me of an interesting radio program I heard last year on how various parts of the human body present evidence against the notion of intelligent design (i.e. creationism).
The clinching question: Who would put a piss-house in the middle of the playground?
Posted by: Keith Pitty on February 22, 2006 02:27 AMI might make it. If I use *all* my frequent flyer points.
Another great book on the topic is, "In the Blink of an Eye" by Andrew Parker: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743219805/ref=ed_oe_h/103-9410709-4633459?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Posted by: Alan Green on February 22, 2006 09:33 PMAlready I've read about people accusing Steve Jones of not debating with the creationist 'scientists', and yet I have never seen any evidence provided for their beliefs through scientific journals. Why accuse us of not discussing this when the path for them to force us to do so is open?
Oh, that's right, they don't want to submit their evidence because they don't have any.
I disagree with some of what Steve Jones says (though take it on board as he *is* my genetics lecturer, and may well be marking my exams) but I think he is right on the ball here. Creationism (and ignorance of evolution, which creationism is a form of) is a problem that needs to be addressed, and I believe he is doing a good job of doing this.
Posted by: D.Shires on April 21, 2006 02:55 PMI LOVE DARWIN <33
Posted by: hollaback on October 27, 2006 03:50 PM