Comments on: Get the Party Started http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/08/22/get-the-party-started/ by Hemant Mehta Sat, 26 May 2012 20:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/08/22/get-the-party-started/#comment-63497 olvlzl, no ism, no ist Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:21 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/08/22/get-the-party-started/#comment-63497 As someone who was brought up accepting evolution by means of natural selection and who grew up to understand that the matter was even more complex and that other mechanisms were involved (as dear old Charles Darwin, himself, predicted) I've got to say that the fact that it's still necessary to defend him and his work is just plain depressing. Of course, the fact that the strict adaptationists and others use his name as if it was a talisman to promote and defend their claims does nothing to move the discussion along. What other science is in the position of appealing to the authority of someone who has been dead for about a hundred-twenty years? Celebrating his birthday is, perhaps, a good idea for political reasons but not if he's used as a poster boy for neo-atheism. That will do nothing to stop the ID-creationist juggernaut, it will grease the tracks. Maybe the best way to celebrate him is to concentrate on the hundred-sixty years of confirmation of his general ideas by other people. There has been progress in evolutionary science since then. It might also be good to face the fact that a hundred-sixty years of study of a three billion plus years of evolution is just scratching the surface. It's a very young science studying something immensely complex and largely hidden, the second word hasn't been written on the subject, never mind the last one. As someone who was brought up accepting evolution by means of natural selection and who grew up to understand that the matter was even more complex and that other mechanisms were involved (as dear old Charles Darwin, himself, predicted) I’ve got to say that the fact that it’s still necessary to defend him and his work is just plain depressing. Of course, the fact that the strict adaptationists and others use his name as if it was a talisman to promote and defend their claims does nothing to move the discussion along. What other science is in the position of appealing to the authority of someone who has been dead for about a hundred-twenty years?

Celebrating his birthday is, perhaps, a good idea for political reasons but not if he’s used as a poster boy for neo-atheism. That will do nothing to stop the ID-creationist juggernaut, it will grease the tracks. Maybe the best way to celebrate him is to concentrate on the hundred-sixty years of confirmation of his general ideas by other people. There has been progress in evolutionary science since then. It might also be good to face the fact that a hundred-sixty years of study of a three billion plus years of evolution is just scratching the surface. It’s a very young science studying something immensely complex and largely hidden, the second word hasn’t been written on the subject, never mind the last one.

]]>