Today, the New York Times reports on a true transitional fossil (named Tiktaalik roseae) between fish and land tetrapods (or "fishapods"), stating unequivocally that "the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life."In last year's Intelligent Design flash-in-the-pan, the NYT attempted to give both sides "equal time," to the point of giving a deeply disproportionate amount of time to IDers.
In contrast, this article cites a creationist website, but only rhetorically to show how the "there are no transitional forms" argument becomes falser by the day.
This is a huge improvement. "Equal time" only gave the false impression that there was a true controversy. Thank you, John Noble Wilford.
(update)
An anonymous comment brought this University of Chicago video relating the story of the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae to my attention.
(photo credit Ted Daeschler, Nature Magazine)
5 comments:
very cool video, too, from the U Chicago
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060405.tiktaalik-video.shtml
Very cool video, too from U Chicago
Thanks for the tip.
Daniel,
You're talking metaphysics -- scientists are talking materialism. I'm willing to allow the two to sit side by side, but ID is not. ID wants to inject an unprovable metaphyscial force into events that don't scientifically require one.
God may have had a hand in the transition in a very broad sense, but no one has shown that the evolution of any species would necessarily require God. To prove that assertion (that is, to support ID) would require an unbelievable amount of negative evidence. ID is in a very logically weak position for exactly that reason.
Science operates by advancing ideas positively -- ID must operate by advancing ideas negatively by elimination.
The World is Watching in Bemusement...
Beware!
Post a Comment