Science, Technology & Health: November 2004 Archives
Here's an excellent, and brief, article that explains in easily understandable terms why evolution is a poor theory.
This autumn 18 gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking’s best-selling book “A Brief History of Time.” Therein Hawking states, “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”There's more, it's short, and I suggest you read the whole thing.I consider Hawking’s statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term “evolution,” I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things. ...
The second requirement for a good theory is far more problematical for the standard evolutionary model, sometimes called the modern synthesis. Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future.
Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, and the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the “best” predictions. This is sometimes true even when the predictions are rather vague, as seen by the continuing controversies associated with the purported relationships between dinosaurs and birds.
(HT: Donald Sensing -- glad you're blogging again!)
Update:
I appear to have gotten my links confused, and the post above has been corrected.
Here also is a peer-reviewed article by Stephen C. Meyer titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" in which "Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms." (Linked to previously.)
Whatever you believe the origin of human life to be, you must admit that our bodies are pretty remarkable (as I was discussing with a friend just last night). Prompted by an article about running as a critical human ability, let me add a couple more.
In addition to running, our dextrous hands and opposable thumbs are obviously pretty important for tool use. Another of our greatest physical advantages is our exceptional sight; our eyes are positioned very high off the ground for an animal of our weight and we can see very far. Unlike prey animals, which have eyes facing to the sides to give them a wide field of view to spot predators, our eyes face forward to give us depth perception for hunting. We also have very high resolution vision compared to most creatures and can distinguish shapes and movement better than most.
Large parts of our huge brains are devoted to sight and recognition, as well as language. Our communication and cooperation abilities are far beyond those of any other creatures, and since we can recognize individuals on sight and use tools together there's really no animal on earth that can come close to competing with us.
(HT: Frank J.)
I have no idea if this will be comprehensible to many people, but here is an attempt -- at least -- at a layman's explanation of the technical concept of complexity. Here also is a Wikipedia entry about computational complexity theory. For anyone who cares, this is what computer science grad students spent an awful lot of time thinking about. (HT: GeekPress.)
If one of my loved ones were near death, I'd want to be there while the doctors tried to save her life.
Seeing chaotic last-ditch efforts to save a relative's life is not for everyone. But now, a majority of hospitals offer such access — and many people are choosing to be there.It would be far better than agonizing in the waiting room, waiting for news.The movement is called "family presence (search)" and is driven mainly by nurses who see it as more compassionate. Better access to information and witnessing for themselves the measures taken, they argue, often help survivors through the grieving process.
