Thursday 17 Apr
 
 
 photo 85cca911-3826-446b-828b-785107dd2ef3_zpse09f07ac.jpg

 

OKG Newsletter


Home · Articles · Opinion · Letters to the Editor · 'Kern is...
Letters to the Editor
 

'Kern is wrong'


David Grow July 27th, 2011

Steve Kern (Letters, “Maybe I’m amazed,” July 13, Gazette) says he has a huge book of quotes from “evolution scientists” questioning evolution.

By now, everyone should know quoting evolutionary scientists out of context to misrepresent the intent of their comments is a standard, dishonest tactic of creationists. It’s called “quote mining.”

Here’s what Steven J. Gould said about one of his most commonly misrepresented passages: “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

There is adequate literature, in print and online, that returns the misrepresented quotes in the Rev. Kern’s big book to context so the original intent of the authors can be understood.

Kern depends on scientists? I think not. Who, what, when, where and show me the data. Present evidence that someone has conducted original

research based on a falsifiable hypothesis addressing some aspect of creationism or intelligent design in a scientific manner that has produced data that can be evaluated by other scientists. I’m not asking for publications, just evidence. Opinion pieces, containing no original data, don’t count. They’re not science.

Scrutiny is the very nature of science.

Science advances on hypothesis, evidence and inference. Skepticism and vigorous debate are at the core of its success.

Scientists may seem to be evolution-biased because they are undoubtedly evidence-biased. The mainstream is what it is because of factual evidence that has survived scientific scrutiny. That is why the science of evolution appears mainstream.

It is preposterous to claim the “scientists” Kern depends on are burdened with a tougher standard than real scientists. When Kern’s “scientists” are questioned on every detail by real scientists, they cite no evidence, facts or data to support their position. They have only arguments from ignorance, personal incredulity and strained interpretations of science.

Here’s another sweeping statement:

Kern is wrong. Readers, keep this in mind.

—David Grow
Edmond
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close