Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quiz for media on Darwin’s theory of evolution


From the American Thinker:

Our fair-minded media have decided to make Darwin’s theory of evolution a test of presidential qualifications. Governor Scott Walker refused to answer on the basis that he wasn’t a biologist. Nobody knows if Obama knows anything about science — like climate prediction, solar energy, shale, or Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Or, say, economics.

Media heads are basically filled with straw when it comes to science. Just ask them the pros and cons of solar energy. They can’t tell you. It’s just another superstition they heard from somebody.

So here is a little quiz for your favorite news guy or gal about Darwinian evolution. Any biology student should ace it. More.

Actually, many couldn’t. Don’t forget how much evolutionary biology today operates as a Darwin protection racket, where Darwin’s theory changes with each new finding that contradicts previous expectations.

But that doesn’t matter. What matters is protecting the racket.

It especially doesn’t matter whether media know anything about any theory of evolution at all.

All that Walker stalkers know is that they are on the side of “science” against “anti-science”—which, in the context, just  means declaring their political allegiances.

We talked about this earlier: You can tell an American election cycle is gearing up when … … Republican politicians are asked where they stand on “evolution.” Why should anyone care where a politician stands on “evolution”? (Scott Walker edition)

To borrow a phrase from the campus left, Darwinism is used to “otherize” certain people of traditional faith — and the politicians who want their vote. Many of the same people who bleat with fear over the dangers of genetically modified food, fracking, vaccines or nuclear power and coo with childlike awe over the benefits of non-traditional medicines will nonetheless tell you they are for “science” when in fact they are simply against a certain kind of Christian having any say about anything. – Jonah Goldberg

Why don’t the pop science enthusiasts highlight  science issues on which legislation or public spending might have an obvious impact instead? Because that would involve work and study, not agenda promotion. Also, there is a risk that people who are not simply barking a pre-approved line might have good ideas …

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: David Kitz

Why does anyone listen to this kind of media any more? Gotta lot of free time on your hands?:

If you want evolution to stop having a stranglehold on science, falsify it or present a viable alternative.
Your equivocation is duly noted. Evolutionism can't be tested. It is useless. Joe
Axel: ‘I believe the public have seen through the atheists’ claims to be the guardians of science' Argumentum ad populem now? Argumentum ad populem can bite you on the ass. Were the people right when they changed their mind about gay marriage, having seen through the religious right's false claims to be the defenders of morality? Were the people right about that? You know, Axel, that support for evolution among the general American public has been slooowly increasing. It's very slow, but it's an upward trend. Why do you think that is, if the voice of the people are always right? The American public are slowly becoming less and less religious. It's slow, and I admit it may reverse, but it's a downward trend. In other countries, the downward trend is more rapid, even procipitous-- e.g. Australia, Ireland, the UK. Why do you think that is, if the voice of the people are always right? Were the people right when they elected Obama, knowing full well he would put in Obamacare? And a final question: Why should our leaders be invoking the "voice of the people" to decide issues of scientific fact? Does leadership consist of just consulting an Opinion Poll? Should all our scientific facts be determined via opinion poll, Axel? Axel has proven my point: why it is crucial to ask politicians if they believe in evolution and where they get their scientific facts from. Axel here tells us Axel's political philosophy: determine scientific facts via an opinion poll. If a politician is that kind of a cowardly idiot, we should know before we vote for the cowardly weasel. Diogenes
Isn't the American Thinker, aka the American Finger, the rag that recently accused Obama of giving a secret Muslim gang sign to African leaders? Why, nothing racist about that at all. Denyse sure knows how to pick her sources. On the plus side, at least O'Leary isn't citing anti-semitic cultists this week. Asking politicians whether or not they believe in evolution, AND WHY, is an excellent and necessary question, precisely because politicians are not supposed to be experts in every subject, and therefore politicians are forced to rely on the expertise of others-- and thus they must pick their sources of information with care. We don't expect all politicians to be scientists, and answering "I'm not a scientist" is a valid answer, but the next question becomes: "Good, you admit you're not a scientist-- so where do you get your scientific information from, then?" If you ask this question of Republicans-- "Do you believe in evolution, and where do you get your information for it or against it from??" this question will quickly "out" most Republicans as liars, weasels, or cranks. The majority of GOP politicians will seek to weasel out of answering the question. Those who oppose evolution always, always get their education about science, their "science facts" from cranks, crackpots, preachers, grifters, con men and antiscience conspiracist extremists. For example: Jim Holt in Arkansas attempted to write a set of "science facts" into House Bill 2548. These "science facts" turned out to be copied from Jack Chick's infamous comic book "Big Daddy" (the one that said Lucy was a chimpanzee and that invented "New Guinea Man" wholecloth so that it cold accuse scientists of frauds that never happened). The "Big Daddy" comic book in turn got its "science facts" from Kent Hovind, one of the more honest creationists, currently in federal prison for tax fraud. The other "science facts" in House Bill 2548 came from Jonathan "all the moths were dead, they pinned them on trees" Wells. In arguing with creationists I constantly ask them "Where did you get that fact-claim from?" and they never, never answer. They always weasel. They say "There are no beneficial mutations" and I ask them "Where did you get that fact-claim from?" and they never, ever answer. They say "There are no transitional fossils" and I ask them "Where did you get that fact-claim from?" and they never, ever answer. They say "No natural process can create information" and I ask them "Where did you get that fact-claim from?" and they never, ever answer. They don't want you to know that they learned ALL their science from Ken Ham or jailbird Kent Hovind. Likewise with global warming. They say "All predictions of climate scientists were disproven" and I ask "Where did you get that fact-claim from?" They don't want you to find out that they learned all their "climate facts" from Lord "I'm a Nobel Laureate, hero of the Falklands War and I have the cure for all diseases" Monckton, aka Baron Mockhausen. Ask any anti-evolutionist where they got their "facts" from. Then be prepared when they change the subject. Off to the Origin of Life! Diogenes
If you want evolution to stop having a stranglehold on science, falsify it or present a viable alternative. CHartsil
If truth were NOT stranger than fiction, Joe, maybe it would be a hideous nightmare world for those journalists. It's not that they'd lose their bearings; it's that they'd FIND them, and would surely blow a gasket. A massive truth- overload. Or if the journos did make the effort to learn the true situation, like hired killers - and professors with tenure, if it comes to that - they might have grounds for fearing their own employer as the greatest danger to their wellbeing. Axel
Axel- a right-wing journalist should ask those questions of an evolutionism believing candidate. But seriously someone needs to school the media as to what is actually being said and debated. It is sickening that in the 21st century a starwman remains the target of our opponents. Joe
Nice post, #1, Joe! Wouldn't that be something?!?; to hear that exchange, if '...er...er ..er ...gulp' from 'the dark side' could be considered as part of an exchange. Axel
Those were great answers, BA (@#5). In my guess, you know a lot more about evolution than the average journalist does - and certainly a lot more than the general public. Silver Asiatic
Axel, I think that half of the Republican Party do answer in the way you suggested. They are staunch in their faith and are not afraid to voice their beliefs. This half is AGW denialist, and evolution unfriends. This splitting of the party is potentially damaging to Executive elections, less so to Legislative ones, as seen in the just run mid-terms. An anti-evolution, global warming denialist Republican President is not the bookies favourite; sorry! However buck up, the chances of an atheist president is absolutely a snow balls chance....:) rvb8
"Do you believe in Intelligent Design?" If the NSF polled that question, a minority would answer "Yes". But I bet that minority would have at least average "science knowledge" skills. Heck, I'll bet "above average" if you give me odds:) ppolish
NSF stopped polling about belief in Evolution as an indicator of science knowledge a couple years back. Good for them. http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted-nsf-report ppolish
actually, though I'm not a biology student, those are pretty tough questions:
What is a biological species? How does it differ from a variety? Give examples. How has Darwinian theory changed since Darwin? (Be specific.) Define the two criteria for “Darwinian fitness.” What are “Darwin finches?” Where are they found? What is the function of HOX genes? What is meant by “ultra-conservation” in evolution? Give two examples. Give an example of a recent evolutionary change in humans, within the last 10,000 years. What is parallel evolution? Give an example. What is meant by “genetic drift”? Why are there two sexes in most species?
Let's see how I do:
What is a biological species? How does it differ from a variety? Give examples.
I really don't know the 'proper' definition. But I do know that the elusive goal of observing speciation has not been achieved by Darwinists. As to variety, I know a dog when I see a dog, I know a cat when I see a cat. I never see any of the in-between examples, (i.e. dat or cog), of 'kinds' that would be expected in Darwinism.
How has Darwinian theory changed since Darwin? (Be specific.)
The major change that I'm aware of is that Darwinism was wedded with Mendelian genetics. That wedding has failed:
Define the two criteria for “Darwinian fitness.”
I really don't know the specifics off the top of my head but generally, if it survives and reproduces more offspring than it did before then it is considered to be more fit than it was. Under that broad definition of fitness, we should not be here since bacteria can easily out reproduce us and, on a survival of the fittest view of things, should have eaten us long ago.
What are “Darwin finches?” Where are they found?
They are a variety of finches on the Galapagos islands whose main claim to fame is varying beak sizes. And although they are claimed as a great proof of evolution, they are nothing of the sort.
What is the function of HOX genes?
They are regulatory elements in the genome that were hoped by Darwinists to explain the plasticity of, and/or rapid appearance of, new body plans with relatively few mutations. The hope was severely misplaced.
What is meant by “ultra-conservation” in evolution? Give two examples.
Genetic sequences that are almost wholly identical in two or more species,,,, Bat and Dolphin genes for echolocation, Bird and Human genes for vocalization
Give an example of a recent evolutionary change in humans, within the last 10,000 years.
the most notable thing is about the 'evolution' of man in the last 10,000 years is the de-evolution that has occurred. Besides shrinking skull sizes, the diversity of races in humans is achieved by a reduction in the original genetic information. Not by a gain in information.
What is parallel evolution? Give an example.
It is two different species that are thought to have derived a similar characteristic from a common ancestor who had that same characteristic. Convergent evolution is more interesting since Darwinists have no common ancestor to appeal to so as to try to explain how the similar traits originated
What is meant by “genetic drift”?
Basically it is Darwinism minus natural selection. Also referred to as the neutral theory of evolution.
Why are there two sexes in most species?
That is one of the most profound enigmas for Darwinists for which I have never been given a satisfactory response. bornagain77
Thank you for your encouraging words, InVivoVeritas. Yes, the situation is utterly surreal. Truth truly is stranger than fiction. And by a very wide margin. Axel
Axel, Very well said! I agree! This should be the approach and the kind of response. Put them on the defensive and show how ridiculous this TOE is. InVivoVeritas
I hate to say anything in support of US Republicans, but I think they should go on the attack when the question of evolution is brought up, by boldly stating something like: 'I believe the public have seen through the atheists' claims to be the guardians of science, whose inept control is imposed by the mega media owners and CEOs and the directors of the multinationals, substantially, the one percent. It is they who are actually the totalitarian enforcers of atheist conformity on Academia, on the basis - having already bought the politicians - of, 'Who pays the piper calls the tune.' And for some reason the public are more than happy to place their trust in the superior intelligence and scientific understanding of the great deist, Intelligent Design-believers of the last century, who actually created modern science, yes, MODERN science, amid a similar sea of incompetent atheist dreamers, whose current descendants speculate on all the worlds you can imagine, so if their science is wrong in one world, heck, there are any number of others in which it will be spot on! So pardon me if I don't answer a question posed by people who every day prove they are not interested in empirical evidence, unless it chimes with their secular- fundamentalist beliefs, their atheist religion; nor influenced by a lack of it, to support the fanciful fables of their very minority atheist cult, in terms of mankind. However, since both parties are now parties of the one percent, and, indeed, the Republicans a wholly-owned subsidiary, I wouldn't hold my breath to hear that articulated. Another tack I'd enjoy adopting, would be to ask the interviewer, which do you think would be a greater tribute to the Creator, a world made from nothing in one go, or a world made from nothing that gradually developed, evolved - like, for instance a child's scooter turning into a tricycle, then a bicycle, then a motorbike, then a car? Interviewer: 'The second. Evolution.' Christian Republican: 'Absolutely. So, do I. Unfortunately, the facts makes such a hypothesis laughable. Beyond laughable. However, I take more than adequate consolation in the knowledge that the Creator of the billions of galaxies in our universe, not constellations, but galaxies, hardly needs a tribute from anyone, least of all, for something so piffling in terms of his infinite power. Axel
I would ask the media to reference this alleged theory of evolution- when was it written, who wrote it and what journal published it. I would then ask what is the evidence that shows natural selection can produce design without a designer. Joe

Leave a Reply