- #106
wave
- 111
- 0
Les Sleeth said:You act like the exaggerating scientists are the exception rather than the rule (do you think Richard Dawkins is objective?).
I've read a number of papers by Dawkins and they seemed objective. On the other hand, some of his books and interviews can be subjective because they contain his personal beliefs. It's his right to publicly express his opinions, and I think most people are smart enough to view it as such. It would be a mistake to stereotype scientists based on the personal beliefs of a few individuals.
Les Sleeth said:However, those scientists you can offer as proof of science's conservative, objective stance wouldn't have to be "trying to show that his colleagues are full of it" if there weren't scientists doing exactly what I am complaining about.
Scientists will continue to debate over Evolution, no matter how accurately it is portrayed to the public. This type of one-upmanship is how science works.
Les Sleeth said:The UC Berkeley website that was recently in the news for being sued by Christians I'd quoted earlier as misrepresenting natural selection as a "force."
I presume you are talking about the lawsuit filed by Caldwell. That lawsuit is not about misrepresentation. The plaintiff object to links on the website that advocate compatibility between Evolution and religion.
Les Sleeth said:"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."
How does the author know natural selection achieved that? It is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact.
Wrong. We know that because we have an overwhelming amount of molecular genetic evidence. For example, mutations often leave very distinct telltale signs in the DNA. A good understanding of genetics is required to fully comprehend the evidence, but I will gladly explain a few examples involving globins if you wish. It's really amazing what we have discovered using molecular genetics.
Les Sleeth said:Teaching evolution theory is fine; but when it is taught the way Berkeley is representing it (and I claim that is a common practice), and misrepresented to the public on science specials by science professionals, then that is a problem.
The Berkeley website is an introduction to Evolution, so it's understandable that they didn't include any explanation. It's also understandable why you'd perceive that as a sign of unproven assumptions. This kind of hand waving frequently occur in popular science books and TV shows. However, they are meant to entertain and to inspire a sense of wonder. Usually there is good solid science underneath, but you won't find it unless you dig deeper. It's very difficult to attract an audience and be scientifically rigorous at the same time.
Les Sleeth said:I admire your belief in the scientific ideal, but your representation of what science "is really about" is not reality. What scientists are actually doing is reality.
Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. My research area is in biophysics, so my belief is based on experience rather than ideal.