Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
Posted by
Laurence A. Moran
at
10:07 AM
Labels: Evolutionary Biology
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly
seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84
I'd like to see it but I just called TIFF and at $21.00 for a single film is well out of my league. I'll be there when it hits the theatres at regular prices.
ReplyDeleteAt least you'll get a chance to see it. It still does not have an American distributor, and we can only speculate why. It's quite an engaging movie.
ReplyDeleteGenie
Any chance the Charles McVety sideshow will turn up to protest it?
ReplyDeleteAlas, I'll be out of town that day.
ReplyDeleteAt least you'll get a chance to see it. It still does not have an American distributor
ReplyDeleteNo worries. The DVD will probably be available within weeks after premiere. You will get a chance to see it if you are sufficiently interested in it. That's the beauty of it - you can get the latest Mongolian art house hit if that's what you really want. Not to mention a British movie with Jennifer Connelly in a familiar role of The Wife.
"It still does not have an American distributor, and we can only speculate why."
ReplyDeleteAccording to http://teaser-trailer.com/2009/08/
creation-movie-trailer.html:
"By the way the movie could be retitled Origin in the USA according to IMDB, it’s probably to try to deflect criticism from the Creationist lobby…"
Interesting, but Paul Bettany often plays villains in movies, and has a history of drug addiction. Not that creationists would ever focus on that.
ReplyDeleteI have been half dreading this movie ever since I saw it described as "part ghost story". I have this nagging feeling that Lady Hope will turn up at the end, played by Reese Witherspoon.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the film-makers could release a DVD with two alternative endings - the US market version with the Lady Hope, ghosts and a 'happy ending', when Darwin debunks his own theory and returns to Christ, and the other for the rest of us, simply telling the real story!
I want to see this movie (partially because I like the actors), however, I'm weary of history as portrayed by non-documentary film. For instance, I don't think anyone was impressed by the historical accuracy of the last film about science featuring Jennifer Connelly, i.e., A Beautiful Mind.
ReplyDeleteI am not very impressed with the trailer. For one thing Jennifer Connelly looks too pretty to be playing Emma Darwin. Maybe Connelly and Bettany had a "buy one get one 50% off" scheme.
ReplyDelete