« The Ethics of Piracy | Main | XKCD Goes Political »

December 21, 2007

Comments

Ned

Modern punditry is fascinating to me. Gerson, as far as I know, has no background in evolutionary science beyond perhaps a high school biology class. But he's a greater authority on this sort of thing, by virtue of appearing in the pages of the Washing Post, than some blogger with an identical background.

Why? Well, because. His job is to sound authoritative on issues that he knows absolutely nothing about rather than, say, doing actual research.

Minipundit

Op-ed columnists have such cushy jobs, ones which I hope to one day hold.

Matt Zeitlin

Ned, you're right. I'm clearly more qualified that Gerson to write about evolutionary biology. Sure, I've only taken a high school biology class, but I took it last year. Not to mention that it was AP Bio...and I got a 5. So WaPo, where do I sign up?

lgm

You misrepresent Gerson's column. He also says: "There are unsolved mysteries in Darwinian evolution. There is also no credible scientific alternative.

"But whatever the scientific objections, it is the theological objections to evolution that are weakest."

He doesn't do the eye debate because he has an interesting new point to make, one that could be more effective with the religious deniers of science.

lgm

You misrepresent Gerson's column. He also says: "There are unsolved mysteries in Darwinian evolution. There is also no credible scientific alternative.

"But whatever the scientific objections, it is the theological objections to evolution that are weakest."

He doesn't do the eye debate because he has an interesting new point to make, one that could be more effective with the religious deniers of science.

eha

No, he didn't misrepresent Gerson's column. How can Gerson know that the theological objections are weaker than the scientific objections if he doesn't understand the evidence against the latter? And the eye debate isn't a debate; it's a sham. Gerson's just blowing smoke.

Dave

Gerson points out that science cannot disprove God, and then claims that science does not address "the most important questions about human destiny".

The first statement is clearly true. The second statement is most likely false.

Regardless of whether life evolved from a random collection of inanimate chemicals, human destiny is going to be governed by pretty much the same laws of physics that currently run the universe.

Maybe by "human destiny" Gerson is just wondering if there is a heaven. There is no proof of it, but to a scientist, that does not mean it is disproven.

But if Gerson were to just say "I don't know anything about anything", his writings (although much more accurate) would be much shorter.

The comments to this entry are closed.