The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Pt 2 of a Possibly More than 200 Part Series

Fred Sigworth seems fairly reasonable and is obviously skilled in the world of cellular and molecular physiology. He seems like a bit of a Thumper, however, as he quotes this - " How do I see the scientific enterprise? An old book puts it this way: one generation commends God's works to another..." - on his brief personal department site, as well as saying that his wife works with Youth for Christ. Great.

The big thing I could find about Prof. Sigworth is his testimony regarding a "textbook" called Of Pandas and People, specifically with respect to using this book as an alternate text in Alabama. The article said in part:
Sigworth called evolution a fact but said he distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. He doubts that macroevolutionary theory can adequately account for the development of the major groups of organisms. He said that, like evolution, "Intelligent Design" does a good job of explaining the data of biology and paleontology.

That's great. I have to say that it far from my place to jump into a discussion about science with a dude who has the credentials of Dr Sigworth...BUT, it seems that his faith is in the way of his science and is tainting his viewing. When he says that "...Intelligent Design does a good job of explaining the data...", he doesn't give said explanation. 'Cause there is no "explanation", persay.

When the "explanantion" boils down to, "Well, that's a really difficult thing to find out about...so let's say God did it because that's what's in the Bible", it's not any sort of learning. Much like in my previous piece on Bruce Malone and the Creationists (great band name, by the way) where he says, "Look at the evidence through biblical glasses and it'll all come clear", you are admitting you have a bias before you start and you're not acknowledging it or trying to correct it. You're actually embellishing it so as to not even worry about the fact that you're saying an Invisible Man made stuff that we're finding. It's quite retarded. The "Milk Fairy" drank the milk in the saucer on the floor overnight, certainly not the cat. See? Makes no sense.

Another funny thing is that the Discovery Institute liked Dr Sigworth's testimony, but probably not his acceptance of microevolution, so they just said he doubts evolution as a whole (fair enough), but someone along the way mis-spelled Sigworth's name as "Figworth", so now if you do a Google search, you get a bunch of citations, mostly from comments on websites, giving "Fred Figworth" as a noted molecular and cellular physiologist who doubts evolution. It's pretty funny that they're only interested in his words and can't even be bothered to find out the man's actual name.

In doing some "URL mining", I found a PDF document from New Horizon Community Fellowship where near the top of page 12 they list "Fred Figworth" as a person who doesn't believe in evolution. To be fair, the directory seems to be a bunch of sermons from the aforementioned church, but the PDF is from August of 2006 - not that long ago at all. Check your sources, folks.

Finally, it needs to be said that Prof. Sigworth is obviously a competent scientist, but one who has a bias that sways how he sees results. That is a major handicap when it comes to Occam's Razor - "Do not posit plurality unless necessary." Don't make shit up unless you gots to. Bible people (and religious folks in general) just know there is a God up there, but there is no reason to include an Invisible Man in the sky in the workings of the Earth or the Universe. Soooo cut that crap out. Seriously.

0 Barbaric Yawps:

Post a Comment

<< Home