Paging Brad DeLong

Michael Gerson, on evolution:

I have little knowledge of, or interest in, the science behind this debate.

He then proceeds to write an entire 800-word column about said debate. Awesome. The next sentence is a gem too:

Can gradual evolutionary changes account for the complex structures of cells and the eye?

Yes. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

7 thoughts on “Paging Brad DeLong

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s