Michael Gerson almost forces me to pull the "Don't know much about " title. He writes:
I have little knowledge of, or interest in, the science behind this debate. Can gradual evolutionary changes account for the complex structures of cells and the eye? Why is the fossil record so weak when it comes to major mutations? I have no idea. There are unsolved mysteries in Darwinian evolution. There is also no credible scientific alternative.
But whatever the scientific objections, it is the theological objections to evolution that are weakest. Critics seem to argue that the laws of nature are somehow less miraculous than their divine suspension. But the elegant formulas of physics, and the complex mechanisms of evolution, strike me as an equal tribute to the Creator.
But you don't know much about them, so why bother? The silly thing is that he's trying to be conciliatory.
2 thoughts on “Miracles of physics”
Even though he’s trying to be conciliatory, it’s still evident that he has been exposed to lots of anti-evolution Intelligent Design crap; for example, his question about the fossil record. The fossil record is weak overall simply because organisms tend to rot unceremoniously when they die. The record is not, however, especially weak with respect to “major mutations” (if I understand what he means by that…). There’s a great fossil record showing transitional forms between reptiles and birds, for example.
He seems to be rejecting ID as a credible scientific alternative while still perpetuating the ID talking point that the theory evolution is full of holes.
This is very much akin to Joe Klein’s lame defense of his horribly inaccurate and defamatory article of FISA and the Democrats. He wound up saying he couldn’t be bothered to study the details he got wrong. The obvious response is that he shouldn’t then write on the subject.
Comments are closed.