Dear Projo Guys,
If too long or badly written then have the courtesy to let me know. I have written numerous reponses to sloppy thinking and bad science over the years. It is your responsibilty to provide readers with current science and a semblance of balance in your op-ed pages. AS a subscriber, who reads the editorial page with considerable attention, I would appreciate the courtesy of a critique or refutation of my counterpoints. jj
On 2/26/09, Jeff Johnson <jeffj514@gmail.com> wrote: Rabbi Shafran’s editorial (Providence Journal, February 25) demonstrated with “tasty irony” his many misconceptions about Darwinian natural selection. For example, living organisms do not “ forever remain mere works in progress”. Most species disappear over time because they failed nature’s harsh testing regimen. Good ideas as represented by genes increase in frequency because they enhance a species chances of survival. Most random mutations, however, are neutral, or deleterious. Good ideas are replicated while bad ideas end up in the fossil record. The notion that the good Rabbi and others want to “permit an open discussion of Darwinism” in order to promote critical thinking" is disingenuous. Why not use the same arguments to assess the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of gravitation, or germ theory, or whether our President committed impeachable offenses and war crimes by subverting the Constitution and launching the illegal war in Iraq? The point is that there are numerous topics which can be used to engage students. However natural selection always seems to be at the top of the list among the Intelligent Design evangelicals. The tactics always evolve some new twist or variation on the theme, but the motivation is always the same; to bring religion into the science classroom. Rabbi Shafran’s glib assertion that hubris is the cause of what he refers to as “scientific orthodoxy” sadly eludes common sense. On the contrary, science is based on evidence and testable hypotheses. It seems far more likely that hubris is an essential ingredient in formal religions that require no evidence for belief and rely only on faith to inform their reality. As Robert Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance said, “When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.” Rabbi Shaffran also spoke of the scores of “intrepid biologists” among others as corroboration for his belief that there are “weaknesses in the theory of macro-evolution.” He never cites who these intrepid souls are nor does he bother to provide any examples of the putative weaknesses in the theory, but this is to be expected from those who are uncomfortable in an empirical world. As with the climate denial crowd it would be fairly easy to assemble a list of the “scores” of experts the Rabbi used to mount his assault on poor Charles Darwin, hounded and beleaguered, even in death. Michael Behe, of Lehigh University and the Discovery Institute, a creationist, right wing, think tank would be the first on my list. Dare I say "irreducible complexity". Rabbi Shafran betrays his attempts to sound like a proponent of moderation when he writes that the limits of accepted science have been reached when they contradict “what we inherently know to be true”. Who we are remains unclear, but the implications of his absolutism are chilling. The Rabbi requires no evidence to ascertain the truth. We just know what is “inherently” true. Conversely, Rabbi Shafron must inherently know what is not true. Evolution no doubt falls into the latter category. The faith based critical thinking skills Rabbi Shafron advocates for our students have nothing to do with science. The Rabbi’s ideas easily mesh with the political intrusions during the past eight years that have been nothing short of a war on public education. I would have far more respect for Rabbi Shafron’s inchoate ideas if he had learned a little biology in school and his essay did not “inherently” wreak of politics. Perhaps the disdain that Richard Dawkins expresses for those who do not believe in evolution is the result of too many encounters with those who would replace reason and scientific methodology with intractable superstition. I would also add that the pervasive anti-science bias resonating in Rabbi Shafron’s arguments have become an epidemic in contemporary America’s stampede to the bottom.
No comments:
Post a Comment