Positive case not built for atheist-materialism
Bernie Hendricks
Issue date: 4/29/09 Section: Opinion & Editorial
Several weeks ago, Brady Phelps leveled his charge that many college students have a "disdain for science … here at SDSU, too." When questioned on the matter of objective evidence to support his case, he punted.
In that column (the April 1st Collegian issue), Phelps defined his argument in the context of Darwinian evolution being the only acceptable starting point for scientific pursuits. His approach to science is guided by an atheist-materialist worldview, and he is commendably open about his atheist faith - declaring in past columns that, compared with the alternatives, he is "very content to be an atheist."
Phelps had a golden opportunity to present objective support for his charge against students in his most recent rejoinder (the April 22nd Collegian issue) and to present a positive case for his embrace of Darwinian evolution (or some variation thereof). He presented neither. Instead of despairing over the alleged "disdain for science," he could have enlightened students on some of the finer points of evolution and perhaps softened that "disdain."
Several of the "evolution heavyweights" of the world have been more willing to shed additional light on this important issue in their public discourses.
One of the leading evolutionists of our time, Niles Eldridge, has observed, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not."
Roger Lewin, co-author of several books with renowned anthropologist Richard E. Leakey, has affirmed, "The theory that we can date the birth of a new species by charting the steady accumulation of mutations over evolutionary time is in serious trouble."
The famous Harvard evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould, concluded that Darwinian synthesis "as a general proposition is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
Eldridge and Gould supported the "saltation" hypothesis for evolution - that new species appeared out of nowhere from sudden, drastic genetic change. Legendary Darwinian evolutionist Richard Dawkins, however, calls saltation "rubbish."
In that column (the April 1st Collegian issue), Phelps defined his argument in the context of Darwinian evolution being the only acceptable starting point for scientific pursuits. His approach to science is guided by an atheist-materialist worldview, and he is commendably open about his atheist faith - declaring in past columns that, compared with the alternatives, he is "very content to be an atheist."
Phelps had a golden opportunity to present objective support for his charge against students in his most recent rejoinder (the April 22nd Collegian issue) and to present a positive case for his embrace of Darwinian evolution (or some variation thereof). He presented neither. Instead of despairing over the alleged "disdain for science," he could have enlightened students on some of the finer points of evolution and perhaps softened that "disdain."
Several of the "evolution heavyweights" of the world have been more willing to shed additional light on this important issue in their public discourses.
One of the leading evolutionists of our time, Niles Eldridge, has observed, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not."
Roger Lewin, co-author of several books with renowned anthropologist Richard E. Leakey, has affirmed, "The theory that we can date the birth of a new species by charting the steady accumulation of mutations over evolutionary time is in serious trouble."
The famous Harvard evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould, concluded that Darwinian synthesis "as a general proposition is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
Eldridge and Gould supported the "saltation" hypothesis for evolution - that new species appeared out of nowhere from sudden, drastic genetic change. Legendary Darwinian evolutionist Richard Dawkins, however, calls saltation "rubbish."
The Collegian is not responsible for any comments made by contributors below.
However, The Collegian will exercise its right to moderate and edit comments which are deemed to be offensive or unsuited to the subject matter of this site.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 19
Dennis N
posted 4/29/09 @ 7:23 PM CST
Wait, so you're a college newspaper, and you're running an article doubting evolution? I thought colleges were about higher learning.
Cletus
posted 4/29/09 @ 8:05 PM CST
Apparently, there is a class in creationist quote-mining at SDSU.
If people want to check out a true lack of evidence for a proposition, try finding contemporaneous (or even closely contemporaneous) non-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. (Continued…)
PhillyChief
posted 4/30/09 @ 1:28 AM CST
I'm curious about this "Darwinian evolution" line. Granted, it's better than the usual Creationist term of simply "Darwinism", but still it belies an ignorance, real or feigned, of science and evolution. (Continued…)
PhillyChief
PhillyChief
posted 4/30/09 @ 1:29 AM CST
I'm curious about this "Darwinian evolution" line. Granted, it's better than the usual Creationist term of simply "Darwinism", but still it belies an ignorance, real or feigned, of science and evolution. (Continued…)
Kubush
posted 4/30/09 @ 4:56 AM CST
Just because we don't know how it all started doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. And Gould and Eldredge are refering to punctuated equilibrium and are not in the slightest refering to biological evolution as a whole. (Continued…)
Tony Konrath
posted 4/30/09 @ 9:19 AM CST
Naughty!
The full quote is ""I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. (Continued…)
Mrs M
posted 4/30/09 @ 10:20 AM CST
Any columnist who mentions Brady Phelps (a piece of shit) in the first line made me stop reading their column.
Reginald Selkirk
posted 4/30/09 @ 2:33 PM CST
Eldridge, Gould, Lewin and Dawkins all believe in the scientific theory of evolution, they just disagree on details. Hendricks wants to deceive you about that. (Continued…)
Shane
posted 4/30/09 @ 3:07 PM CST
"...the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance..."
Atoms follow regular physical laws, and their predictability allows sentience to develop to reflect a consistent, meaningful relationship to reality. (Continued…)
Mr. Hendricks just doesn't get it
posted 4/30/09 @ 9:42 PM CST
Bernie Hendricks expects Brady Phelps to prove atheism, to there is no god. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie... You can't prove a negative! Phelps cannot prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no Santa Claus. (Continued…)
Post a Comment