LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.Byline: The Register-Guard The devil made us do it The fact that The Register-Guard still chooses to make space for a debate on the merits on the merits adj. referring to a judgment, decision or ruling of a court based upon the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence. A judge decides a case "on the merits" when he/she bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers of evolution is a poor reflection on the state of critical thinking in both our country and at the editorial staff, not to mention an incredible waste of column space that could be devoted to discussing things in the news that actually are debatable de·bat·a·ble adj. 1. Being such that formal argument or discussion is possible. 2. Open to dispute; questionable. 3. In dispute, as land or territory claimed by more than one country. . Perhaps, if we're to continue this debate, there also should be some space left to debate the flatness of the Earth and whether or not the common cold is caused by evil spirits inhabiting the body. Justin Morell Eugene Science gets things right So Robert Williamson Robert Williamson is the first name of several notable individuals:
So much for the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications that have flowed from his 1859 treatise A scholarly legal publication containing all the law relating to a particular area, such as Criminal Law or Land-Use Control. Lawyers commonly use treatises in order to review the law and update their knowledge of pertinent case decisions and statutes. and have established unambiguously his ideas as the centerpiece of modern biology. As for intelligent design, I first came across the idea 50 years ago when I read of William Paley
William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British divine, Christian apologist, utilitarian, and philosopher. (1743-1805) and his famous watch analogy. Watches, complex objects, have creators, and therefore the universe, a complex object, must have a creator. But Paley's analogy was debunked long ago. Either intelligent design argues that all complex things have a creator and so the universe must have a creator (which leads to the dilemma of what created the creator), or intelligent design argues that all complex things have a creator except for the prime creator, that is, God, and so God becomes a mere postulate postulate: see axiom. , not a proven fact. Science is hard, but it gets things right, and it works. You can be sure that the pilot in Harold Adamson's famous World War II song that invokes "a wing and a prayer" would have given up the prayer, not the wing, if he had been confronted with the choice. John David Buckmaster Eugene Newton wasn't peer-reviewed Well, it finally happened. I saw an opinion in the Mailbag that is so outrageous, unsupported, misleading and pompous pom·pous adj. 1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders. 2. that I cannot resist a response. Regarding Robert Williamson's Aug. 28 letter, "Darwin wasn't peer-reviewed," I would agree that Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859, was not subject to the current peer-review process for scientific publications. What a surprise. Neither were Isaac Newton's works, so I guess I can now safely discount gravity and the laws of motion laws of motion See Newton's laws of motion. . The accusation that "problems" with Darwin's original theory have "become fatal" apparently misses the concept that science builds on itself. The modern evolutionary synthesis The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas from several biological specialities that were brought together to form a unified theory of evolution accepted by the great majority of working biologists. (aka neo-Darwinism) adds to evolutionary theory
Thanks to the efforts of scientists and lay people supporting science, supernatural explanations for physical phenomena have yet to be incorporated into science classes in our country. Williamson can rest assured that his concerns about the constitutionality of teaching evolution and not teaching intelligent design in science classes have been resolved by a real judge in a real trial (Kitzmiller vs. Dover) in a real U.S. District Court. The conservative judge, appointed by President Bush, concluded that evolution is science and intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from creationism creationism or creation science, belief in the biblical account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis, a characteristic especially of fundamentalist Protestantism (see fundamentalism). , which is a religious belief. The court's final opinion is 139 pages long and pages 136 to 139 summarize it. As to the success of Steven Meyer's "peer-reviewed" article, see www.pandasthumb.org/?pt-archives/000508.html. Robin Link Yachats Article didn't meet standard In an Aug. 28 letter, Robert Williamson of Creswell stated that intelligent design was supported by a "peer-reviewed" article written by a Ph.D. named "Steven Meyers." The person to whom he refers is in fact Steven Meyer, an American theologian the·o·lo·gi·an n. One who is learned in theology. theologian Noun a person versed in the study of theology Noun 1. , and this particular paper to which Williamson refers has been redacted by the journal in which it was published because it did not meet a high scientific standard. You can find more about this online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer. Please, before the newspaper publishes such nonsense by uninformed readers, editors should take a moment to crosscheck cross·check tr.v. cross·checked, cross·check·ing, cross·checks 1. To verify by comparing with parallel or supplementary data. 2. some of the references. It took me all of about two minutes to find out this information. It seems to me this is the very least a respected news publication can do. Justin Morell Eugene Be cautious about peer review It is disheartening dis·heart·en tr.v. dis·heart·ened, dis·heart·en·ing, dis·heart·ens To shake or destroy the courage or resolution of; dispirit. See Synonyms at discourage. to see anti-evolutionists such as Robert Williamson (letters, Aug. 28) continue to take unthinking potshots at Charles Darwin's contribution to our understanding of the natural world. Upon a growing base of solid fact by any definition, there are models and theories used to guide future research. The same applies to diverse fields such as child development, neuroscience neu·ro·sci·ence n. Any of the sciences, such as neuroanatomy and neurobiology, that deal with the nervous system. neuroscience the embryology, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology of the nervous system. or theoretical physics. One could find countless explorers of our world who would "peer-review" Darwin's work positively, even given the advances that have occurred since the volume was published well over a century ago. Isaac Newton and Galileo, not to mention Albert Einstein, offered frameworks that allowed our understanding of nature to progress, even though in each case certain details have had to be modified through subsequent research. That is the way science works. Science opens up as well as closes mysteries. The idea of peer review itself needs to be thought about carefully. If I choose to write a bigoted big·ot·ed adj. Being or characteristic of a bigot: a bigoted person; an outrageously bigoted viewpoint. big and ignorant article, all I need to do is find "peers" to applaud my efforts. Such victories are hollow, as are the arguments against the sharpening For image sharpening, see . Sharpening is the process of creating or refining a sharp edge on a tool or implement. The term has a wide application but can be expressed as the creation of two intersecting planes which produce an edge that is sharp enough to cut through the target of our views of the world that pioneers such as Darwin have offered. It is not a matter of whether we dislike the facts because they fail to support our intuitions and biases, but whether the facts build upon one another in such a way as to critically change our world views - thereby increasing our appreciation for the true mysteries of the world. John Carroll John Carroll may be:
Eugene Biology supports Darwin Robert Williamson (letters, Aug. 28) would have us believe that Charles Darwin is suspect due to a lack of peer review. Scientists, real ones, have been peer-reviewing Darwin for 150 years, and all those years of work (including comparative genetics, which Darwin certainly had no access to) reveal Darwin's insights to have been amazingly accurate. Any "new discoveries" Williamson alludes to without specification consistently have supported the key aspects of Darwin's original theory over the course of the theory's life. All science takes a "materialistic ma·te·ri·al·ism n. 1. Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. 2. " (scientists would, I think, prefer the term "naturalistic nat·u·ral·is·tic adj. 1. Imitating or producing the effect or appearance of nature. 2. Of or in accordance with the doctrines of naturalism. ") view of the world: that natural phenomena have natural causes. That is what science is. The overwhelming amount of work done in biology unequivocally supports the theory that has grown from such research. That's the way science works. And Williamson wants us to lay against such daunting daunt tr.v. daunt·ed, daunt·ing, daunts To abate the courage of; discourage. See Synonyms at dismay. [Middle English daunten, from Old French danter, from Latin proof one unnamed "peer-reviewed" article by someone who, as far as I can tell from a Web search, does not have a Ph.D. in any biological science, but a Th.D., a doctorate in theology. And that is about the size of it. American theocrats find niggling points with which to quibble QUIBBLE. A slight difficulty raised without necessity or propriety; a cavil. 2. No justly eminent member of the bar will resort to a quibble in his argument. in the area of evolution, but then want us to somehow believe life was created all at once 6,000 years ago based on a highly inconsistent book whose earliest parts date back to about 500 B.C. or so. I suggest the book "Monkey Girl" for a readable account of this issue from the viewpoint of scientific truth, not theological "truth." Joe Renaud Eugene Meyer article was retracted re·tract v. re·tract·ed, re·tract·ing, re·tracts v.tr. 1. To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement. 2. Robert Williamson (letters, Aug. 28) states "Steven Meyers, Ph.D., had a major work on intelligent design successfully peer-reviewed." What he did not say was that Steven Meyer is a theologian with a Ph.D. in history (not biological sciences) and is the founder of the Discovery Institute, an organization the mission of which is to further the cause of intelligent design. The "peer-reviewed" article was retracted by the publisher as not meeting scientific standards or being properly peer-reviewed. The journal's editor for this particular paper also believed in intelligent design and chose not to follow the proper procedures normally used for peer-reviewed articles. This incident has caused the publisher to assure that all future submissions to this journal will meet proper and usual standards, regardless of subject content. Once again, we have a case of intelligent design proponents being dishonest by not revealing all of the facts. Dan Gleason Eugene Minutes of silence add up Sixty-two hours. A wearisome span, when one considers the difficulty of staying awake so long. More than thirty-seven hundred minutes. Now, consider pausing for a moment of silence, a minute in traditional length, one for each fallen American soldier, a traditional honor, a gesture of respect. Not much to ask, given the sacrifice of each young man and woman, given how many minutes of their futures they've given up to the cause of this war of folly. Sixty-two hours. More than 3,700 consecutive minutes of silence, needed to commemorate the American dead. And how many more hours were we to commemorate the Iraqi dead? Ten thousand, perhaps more. So many lives so terribly lost, so many more to follow. Bring 'em home, and keep 'em well. Todd Huffman Eugene |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion