Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Unbelievable.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/tc_usatoday/thewholeworldfromwhosehands]"Scientists are really stuck: They don't have testable, repeatable proof of evolution. You are seeing the extraordinary fight to hold on to a paradigm that is increasingly embarrassed," Coppenger says. "But Christians can think God used evolution or that he created humanity specially. You can take a position anywhere in that spectrum. We have alternatives."

Coppenger's own view is that God created the Earth fairly recently and that it was created "fully formed" with apparent age - rings in the tree trunks, strata in the mountains and all.[/url]

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Unbelievable.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/tc_usatoday/thewholeworldfromwhosehands]"Scientists are really stuck: They don't have testable, repeatable proof of evolution. You are seeing the extraordinary fight to hold on to a paradigm that is increasingly embarrassed," Coppenger says. "But Christians can think God used evolution or that he created humanity specially. You can take a position anywhere in that spectrum. We have alternatives."

Coppenger's own view is that God created the Earth fairly recently and that it was created "fully formed" with apparent age - rings in the tree trunks, strata in the mountains and all.[/url]

stupidity [can] be extremely dangerous, and this is why i can't just laugh at it.

LAD wrote:

larsxe wrote:

steve wrote:Science is a method, not an orthodoxy. It has no agenda.

True, but unlike the days of Archimedes, science today co-exists with technology and is inseparable from it.

LAD wrote:After reading some Bruno Latour, I am inclined to agree that in most instances it makes sense to speak of technoscience (Latour's term) rather than science. For the most part, science only advances insofar as technology does. The two are wedded inseparably.

And the relation(s) between the technological innovation necessary for science and the dictates of the military, the state, and the economy, well. . . yeah, Monsanto and Dow Chemical do a lot of science, and they've got agendas.

steve wrote:

LAD wrote:After reading some Bruno Latour, I am inclined to agree that in most instances it makes sense to speak of technoscience (Latour's term) rather than science. For the most part, science only advances insofar as technology does. The two are wedded inseparably.

Hooey.

Virtually all physics has advanced through insight and mathematics rather than technology. The technology has been used (mostly) as a tool to test hypotheses. The insight and the mathematics were the advancement, the technology merely a tool for its validation.

And the relation(s) between the technological innovation necessary for science and the dictates of the military, the state, and the economy, well. . . yeah, Monsanto and Dow Chemical do a lot of science, and they've got agendas.

That's not science. That's industry.

Naturally, he's a chip off the old DNA

By Amy Worden

Inquirer Staff Writer


HARRISBURG - Charles Darwin might not be in the federal courtroom to hear witnesses challenge his theory of evolution.

But his DNA is.

As one of Darwin's most vocal modern-day critics testified in a landmark lawsuit last week, the eminent scientist's great-great-grandson sat six feet away in the jury-box-turned-press box.

In the courtroom, Matthew Chapman, a New York author and screenwriter, is one of the 75 people from the United States and abroad covering the Dover, Pa., school board trial, the first court proceeding ever on the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

But outside the court, Chapman recognizes that he plays other roles: lightning rod for supporters of intelligent design and a living connection to the 19th-century scientist whose theories on natural selection and the origin of species provide the foundation for modern biology.

Chapman, 55, a British-born American citizen, says he is stunned that debate continues in some parts of the the United States 123 years after Darwin's death and 80 years after the Scopes "monkey trial."

"Evolution is such a nonissue everywhere else in the world," said Chapman, who counts among his screenwriting credits the John Grisham thriller Runaway Jury.

Chapman, who is on assignment for Harper's Magazine and also is working on a documentary for the BBC, has tried to remain an observer on the sidelines, joining the press gaggle, tape recorder in hand, after court each day. He also has been spending time in Dover, talking to students and sitting quietly through what he sees as antievolution speeches by local ministers.

"This is really the first courtroom scientific debate, since science wasn't allowed in the courtroom in the Scopes trial," said Chapman.

Last week, he listened to testimony from the lead witness for the defense - Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe - and intently scribbled in his notebook.

Behe, author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box, testified that what he calls the "purposeful arrangement of parts" in certain biochemical processes is evidence that intelligent design is a scientific idea.

"I'm appalled by the lack of respect for the evidence," Chapman said. "Darwin spent 23 years compiling evidence he gathered to present his theory."

Behe said later he was not surprised when Chapman turned up a few feet away from the witness stand.

"Oddly, I felt reassured by his presence," said Behe, who met Chapman during a break in the trial. "He's such a friendly guy, like I imagine Darwin was, who's interested in chewing over ideas."

Chapman says he is amused by the tone of some evolution opponents. They spit out the word Darwinists, he said, with the same vitriol as the word Communists was uttered during the Red Scare in the 1950s.

Among those Darwin foes Chapman has encountered was the Rev. Jim Grove of Heritage Baptist Church, easily the most vocal creationist in the Dover area. Grove organized a mid-trial event attended by 150 people titled, "More Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid."

Chapman said he feared evangelicals such as Grove are more concerned "with the future of their souls than the future of American education."

Grove said he hoped to interview Chapman one day, perhaps influence him. "He isn't what we would call 'saved'," Grove said. "We're praying for him."

Chapman said he doesn't feel defensive about his ancestry.

"The only time I've felt proud of being descended from Darwin is in opposition to creationists," he said.

Chapman said that having Darwin in the family tree gave him no star status growing up in Cambridge, England, where evolution, like the theory of gravity, was accepted.

"It's kind of like being [Isaac] Newton's great-great grandson," he said. "Evolution was accepted."

Neither did his family dwell on the Darwin connection. In fact, says Chapman, through the years Darwin's memory was mostly shelved away like one of his leatherbound books.

When asked what his grandmother remembered of her grandfather, Chapman said he could only recall family lore about Darwin's hypochondria.

"He was always ill," Chapman said.

Darwin's complete works, including a first edition of On the Origin of Species, occupied a less-than-distinguished place in the library - by the fire, said Chapman.

The books were later sold at auction, to "someone who would appreciate them more," Chapman said.

In 2001, Chapman published The Trial of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir, in which he chronicled his own journey to Dayton, Tenn., home of the Scopes trial. For his current assignment with Harper's, he plans to write a first-person narrative that explores the people behind the Dover trial.

"I'll look at the effect of anti-science litigation, the effect of faith on reasoning," he said.

Chapman - who lives with his wife, Denise Dummont, a Brazilian actress, and their 17-year-old daughter - wants to understand the Dover community at the center of the storm.

To that end, Chapman spent the last few weeks in Dover chatting with high school students and attending church services. Dover, 35 miles southwest of Harrisburg, more suburban than rural, seems on its face far different from the isolated mountain town of Dayton, Tenn., where John Scopes was tried and convicted of teaching evolution in 1925.

But Chapman says it disturbs him that what he considers to be religious intolerance and ignorance can prevail in a middle-class, relatively educated community.

"Here you have a town three hours from New York City," Chapman said. "Look at the school board members who approved the intelligent design policy. They are not impoverished, educationally or monetarily. That's what's terrifying."

steve wrote:

LAD wrote:
After reading some Bruno Latour, I am inclined to agree that in most instances it makes sense to speak of technoscience (Latour's term) rather than science. For the most part, science only advances insofar as technology does. The two are wedded inseparably.

Hooey.

Virtually all physics has advanced through insight and mathematics rather than technology. The technology has been used (mostly) as a tool to test hypotheses. The insight and the mathematics were the advancement, the technology merely a tool for its validation.

And the relation(s) between the technological innovation necessary for science and the dictates of the military, the state, and the economy, well. . . yeah, Monsanto and Dow Chemical do a lot of science, and they've got agendas.

That's not science. That's industry.