Saturday, September 26, 2009
A sad state of science illiteracy
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters: Illegal traditions should not be tolerated
- Pick of the day: Teacher's conviction should scare parents
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Walter R. Lawson
Lawson is a retired physicist living in Roanoke.
David Clark's commentary "Evolution isn't even a good theory" (Sept. 10) saddens me.
I am saddened because a supposedly educated individual like Clark uses religious arguments to disparage Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Darwin's theory is unquestioned by scientists who study life and its origins (biologists, paleontologists, etc.). Religious arguments are irrelevant to any discussion on the validity of Darwin's or any other scientific theory. The validity of any scientific theory can be established only by scientific methods.
I am saddened because Clark, like so many others, uses fallacious, scientific-sounding arguments to support his thesis that Darwin's theory is "not even a good scientific theory." Clark argues against macroevolution since it has not been observed. Further, he implies that DNA had to spring into existence by some "miracle" and, finally, he argues that the source of "information" in DNA must be an intellect.
In making these simplistic arguments, Clark ignores the fossil record, the environmental effects on the distribution of species, the DNA analyses that demonstrate the relationships among species, and actual observations of changes in species as they adapt to different environments. Furthermore, Clark ignores studies aimed at understanding the origins of life; these studies do not indicate that modern cells and DNA miraculously appeared, but rather they evolved over several billion years from primitive forms of life.
Finally, Clark's comments about "information" are meaningless; the information associated with DNA is a measure of the number of bits needed to describe the chemical code of the DNA. The source of this measure is the human intellect. No intellect was required for the molecules comprising the code to have assembled over a couple billion years.
I am saddened because Clark maintains that the Bible must be literally true in order to accept its moral and spiritual teachings. The fact that parts of the Bible are mythical does not lessen the teachings contained in it, such as the teaching of Jesus: "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." Undoubtedly, early biblical writings were assembled by priests to convey, at least in part, moral and spiritual lessons that Hebrews and others should follow in order to coexist in orderly communities; the mythical aspect of events narrated in the Bible does not affect the value of these lessons.
I am saddened because Clark believes his views are in some sense justified because Henry Morris, a civil engineering professor, and other Virginia Tech professors do not accept evolution. The writings and opinions of professors and others have no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory unless they have produced credible scientific evidence to support their opinions and writings. Frankly, I am not aware of any legitimate scientific studies that invalidate the essential premises associated with Darwin's theory.
I am saddened that Clark is associated with Tech. This association gives him the opportunity to influence students with his fallacious arguments. Different ideas should be discussed at a university; however, discussions concerning an established scientific theory should be based on evidence and logical reasoning, not on unsupportable and mystical beliefs.
I am also saddened that The Roanoke Times published Clark's commentary. I assume The Times published this commentary because the editors feel that all sides of a debate should be aired. The problem is that publication of a commentary like Clark's implies that there is a real controversy concerning Darwin's theory. In fact, there is no controversy among scientists who study the origins of life; these scientists universally accept the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution theory as they continue to sort out the details.
The only controversy about evolution is an artificial controversy created by non-scientists like Clark who consider evolution to be a threat to their religious beliefs or who just cannot accept the fact that Homo sapiens and the great apes have a common ancestor.
Finally, I am saddened because I have felt compelled to write this commentary. If most Americans were scientifically literate and accepted the validity of Darwin's theory of the origin of species, this commentary would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate. This circumstance is truly sad, because these Americans easily believe erroneous information regarding evolution as well as other scientific observations and conclusions (e.g. on global warming). A scientifically illiterate populace does not forebode well for our nation as we compete with increasing numbers of scientifically literate peoples around the world.
