Well, as the Nature says, “Given that the concepts and realities of Darwinian evolution are still challenged, albeit rarely by biologists, a succinct briefing on why evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle is useful for people to have to hand.”. Now, if the purpose of the “succinct briefing” was to address the evolution deniers, then we are looking at nothing, but a spectacular failure.
Such a text should provide compelling in-your-face arguments, which are little short of spectacular, and are hardly possible to dismiss or argue with. Instead, the potential advocates of evolution are provided with “succinct” 16 pages of text, dozen or two of species names in Latin, 19 references (mostly to itself, The Nature) and not a single picture a single picture of Darwin in a God-like surrounding of all sorts of animals.
How is that different from “Bible does not lie, because it’s a word of God, and we know that for sure, because the bible itself says it’s a word of God”?
Not that I deny evolution or anything, mind you. I just think, that we, the scientists, can do much better than that. And especially them, the scientists that publish in Nature.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
carisma_sensei
Singing to the choir
Date: 2009-02-23 05:13 pm (UTC)Such a text should provide compelling in-your-face arguments, which are little short of spectacular, and are hardly possible to dismiss or argue with. Instead, the potential advocates of evolution are provided with “succinct” 16 pages of text, dozen or two of species names in Latin, 19 references (mostly to itself, The Nature) and
not a single picturea single picture of Darwin in a God-like surrounding of all sorts of animals.How is that different from “Bible does not lie, because it’s a word of God, and we know that for sure, because the bible itself says it’s a word of God”?
Not that I deny evolution or anything, mind you. I just think, that we, the scientists, can do much better than that. And especially them, the scientists that publish in Nature.