<p>Punk eek (I like that term) is really interesting; I read a short article on Gould and his work and wanted to know of your opinions. I then proceeded to read Edward Mayr, which was more or less in favor of gradual adaptation. Evolution is a favorite topic of mine, but I don't quite have the grasp as you do.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>What does evolution mean? It simply means change. Things change. Nothing is constant. And "the unifying theory of biology" seeks to explain the change.</p>
<p>Science is tentative and is constantly being revamped as new observations are made. At this time, evolution is the best explanation we've got.</p>
<p>Until someone shows me that mutations are impossible, that adaptation never happens, and gives me a good alternative explanation to vestigial structures, evolution it is for me.</p>
<p>What?! Didn't you know that God designed my human ears to wiggle somewhat like a horse's to make me even more sexy than I would have been?</p>
<p>Also, I wouldn't trade my coccyx for anything...short of a full tail.</p>
<p>Yeah, Vestigial structures. Either an obvious result of evolutionary overlap easily seen in mammals or "God" experienced a HELL of a learning curve on that sixth day of creation.</p>
<p>I hate to beat a dead horse (well, not that much, I do like tender meat after all), but let's explore a few concepts here:</p>
<p>Why are humans, supposedly the pinnacle of life according to creationists, so incredibly flawed in so many ways? Why would God make childbirth so dangerous? Why give us an appendix? Why give some human populations arterosclerosis, but not a small population in Sicily? Why are our knees so absurdly crappy? Why bipedalism, when it's so inefficient? Why make so many of our senses so poor comparatively speaking? Why give men sperm that need to be cool, thereby necessitating external testes and increasing the chance that they will be damaged, and rendered useless? Why give us a tailbone that fractures easily? Why give us wisdom teeth that cause rot, pain, and general misery (I just had mine removed. They are stupid.)</p>
<p>Now, we don't have the answers to all the aforementioned questions yet. But I'd rather explore them within the boundaries of the scientific method than use a priori arguments that rest on "The Creator" and "Because."</p>
<p>Actually, the arterosclerosis one just ****es me off. Why do some Sicilians get to eat all the delicious food they want, and never have their arteries clog, but I so much as eat a piece of sugary fruid and my LDL goes through the roof?</p>
<p>Misinterpretation- When I said that science and religion can coexist peacefully, I didn't mean that they should merge into one store of knowledge. That's just stupid. I meant that the existence of one in no way precludes the other. i.e. science can't disprove religion, and religion can't disprove proven science.</p>
<p>This is why we can have scientists who are religious.</p>
<p>Gutrade, thanks, I was aware that they found out how amino acids can arise from a primordial soup, thanks for the info about RNA. While Intelligent Design is likely to be flawed (as you have shown), I decided to keep an open mind and not dismiss it so quickly.</p>
<p>Pookdog said: "The real question is whether Professor Johnson should be allowed to espouse his dangerous beliefs on those poor unwitting Berkeley students."</p>
<p>I somehow doubt the subject comes up that often in a law class. Just because he wrote a book on the subject and happents to believe in some type of creation doesn't mean that he "espouse[s] his dangerous beliefs on those poor unwitting Berkeley students."</p>
<p>In fact since religion and science exist to describe the same world, those who believe in religion MUST combine the two. I choose to believe, as does the Catholic Church, that scientific laws and the fabric of the universe are instruments of God. Basically how God created everything is described by science (it's nice to think He did it so perfectly as by merely His triggering of the Big Bang led to all of this). In fact, the Bible is mostly correct in terms of chronological order, i.e. sea before land, man near the end, etc.</p>
<p>Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, although religion should not be included in scientific arguments, agreed. But there is no need at all for animosity between scientists and religious. "Religious" that espouse that the world was created 6000 years ago are just crackpots.</p>
<p>(And Gutrade, I was thinking of tranferring to Stanford too, but it wouldn't be worth disrupting everything again. I'll stick to Princeton.)</p>
<p>Sometimes the only way to advance is to disprove existing theories (or parts of them!) So, let them explore, see what they find. It isn't like we should be afraid that they'll come up with a scientifically backed theory on how God said poof, and there we were, lol!! </p>
<p>Like was said, this is a Law professor, not even in the Science dept. So, who cares? </p>
<p>Edwards v. Aguillard concerned a Louisiana law that expressly said that if schools were going to teach evolution, they would have to teach creation science. The professor does not teach his views to his law students! The legal precedence has no direct relevance to this professor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, let them explore, see what they find. It isn't like we should be afraid that they'll come up with a scientifically backed theory on how God said poof, and there we were, lol!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"They," I suppose, implies the professor and the class. Having the professor pontificate on the subject is at the very least dubious legally.</p>
<p>UCLAri: When Chemeng1 said "So, let them explore, see what they find. It isn't like we should be afraid that they'll come up with a scientifically backed theory on how God said poof, and there we were, lol!!," I'm pretty sure that he meant the creation science community, not a professor and his law class taking field trips to science labs trying to prove evolution false. Two lines down, Chemeng even said "Like was said, this is a Law professor, not even in the Science dept. So, who cares? "</p>
<p>Anyway, it doesn't matter what Chemeng said, it matters what the Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguillard, which I was responding to. It in no way forbids a professor from writing a book on his beliefs. I don't think they will any time soon either, thanks to the First Amendment.</p>
<p>UCLAri is the most sensible guy on these boards.</p>
<p>About the external testes, God gave them to us to have an endless supply of jokes and puns. "How many sacks do you have? You are a football player, aren't you? Teehee!"</p>