首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there trul
Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there trul
admin
2013-01-15
102
问题
Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there truly is a controversy that must be taught. "The Darwinists are bluffing," he says over a plate of oysters at a downtown seafood restaurant. "They have the science of the steam engine era, and it’s not keeping up with the biology of the information age."
Meyer hands me a recent issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews with an article by Carl Woese, an eminent microbiologist at the University of Illinois. In it, Woese decries the failure of reductionist biology—the tendency to look at systems as merely the stun of their parts—to keep up with the developments of molecular biology. Meyer says the conclusion of Woese’s argument is that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes.
It’s a page out of the antievolution playbook: using evolutionary biology’s own literature against it, selectively quoting from the likes of Stephen Jay Gould to illustrate natural selection’s downfalls. The institute marshals journal articles discussing evolution to provide policymakers with evidence of the raging controversy surrounding the issue.
Woese scoffs at Meyer’s claim when I call to ask him about the paper. "To say that my criticism of Darwinists says that evolutionists have no clothes," Woese says, "is like saying that Einstein is criticizing Newton, therefore Newtonian physics is wrong." Debates about evolution’s mechanisms, he continues, don’t amount to challenges to the theory. And intelligent design "is not science. It makes no predictions and doesn’t offer any explanation whatsoever, except for God did it."
Of course Meyer happily acknowledges that Woese is an ardent evolutionist. The institute doesn’t need to impress Woese or his peers; it can simply co-ocpt the vocabulary of science— "academic freedom," "scientific objectivity," "teach the controversy"—and redirect it to a public trying to reconcile what appear to be two contradictory scientific views. By appealing to a sense of fairness, ID finds a place at the political table, and by merely entering the debate it can claim victory. "We don’t need to win every argument to be a success," Meyer says. "We’re trying to validate a discussion that’s been long suppressed."
This is precisely what happened in Ohio. "I’m not a PhD in biology," says board member Michael Cochran. "But when I have X number of PhD experts telling me this, and X number telling me the opposite, the answer is probably somewhere between the two."
An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10,000 pro-evolution scientists against two Discovery executives. "What these people want is for there to be a debate," says Krauss. "People in the audience say, Hey, these people sound reasonable. They argue, ’People have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.’ That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we don’t teach that in history."
Eventually, the Ohio board approved a standard mandation that students learn to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Proclaiming victory, Johnson barnstormed Ohio churches soon after notifying congregations of a new, ID-friendly standard. In response, anxious board members added a clause stating that the standard "does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." Both sides claimed victory. A press release from IDNet trumpeted the mere inclusion of the phrase intelligent design, saying that "the implication of the statement is that the ’teaching of testing of intelligent design’ is permitted." Some pro-evolution scientists, meanwhile, say there’s nothing wrong with teaching students how to scrutinize theory. "I don’t have a problem with that," says Patricia Princehouse, a professor at Case Western Reserve and an outspoken oppnent of ID. "Critical analysis is exactly what scientists do."
Stephen Meyer seems to be criticizing Darwinists because ______.
选项
A、the evidence for their theories is peer-reviewed
B、they were born in the age of steam engine
C、their theories are already out of date
D、they can not catch up with the information tecbnology
答案
A
解析
根据第1段中Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there truly is controversy that must be taught,可知Stephen Meyer之所以批评Darwinists是因为他们的理论证据是peer-reviewed的。所以选项A与原文意思相符。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/xn2O777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
IaskedmymotherifIcouldgoout,andshe______.
Itisnotasdifficulttostoreinformationasitisto______itquicklywhenitiswantedagain.
Thepolicehaveofferedalarge______forinformationleadingtotherobber’sarrest.
Onebusyday,Iwasracingaroundtryingtogettoomuchdone,andIexclaimedtomythreekidsinthecar,"Wecangetboththi
InthefirstyearorsoofWebbusiness,mostoftheactionhasrevolvedaroundeffortstotaptheconsumermarket.Morerecentl
Manyinstructorsbelievethataninformal,relaxedclassroomenvironmentis【1】tolearningandinnovation.Itisnotuncommon
随机试题
小群落形成的原因是垂直因子的成层性。()
运用符号学方法研究作品本身的美国美学家是【】
IgG亚类包括IgG1、IgG2、IgG3、IgG4,在总IgG中所占的比例分别为
某患者,24岁,尿频、尿痛3天,近2天白带增多呈脓性就诊。妇科检查:阴道黏膜充血,以手指压尿道腺时有脓性分泌物流出,触痛明显。最可能的诊断是
洋地黄中毒者,下列何种措施是错误的
肺炎链球菌肺炎首选哪种抗生素
29岁孕妇,妊娠32周,3周内阴道少量出血2次,今天凌晨突然阴道出血多于月经量,无腹痛,血压100/80mmHg,脉搏96次/分,宫高30cm,腹围85cm,臀先露,未入盆,胎心音清晰,144次/分。应首先考虑的疾病是
8个月女婴,周围血白细胞总数11×109,分类:中性粒细胞占70%,淋巴细胞占28%,单核细胞占2%,以下哪个结论是正确的
【背景材料】目前北京、上海、济南、青岛等10个城市叫停了滴滴打车、易到用车、快的打车等公司的专车服务,并把专车定位成“黑车”。舆论对管理部门叫停专车的做法几乎是一边倒反对。受访的业界人士表示,打车难迟迟得不到解决,出租车司机挣不到钱,当务之急是破
下面关于设备属性的叙述中,正确的是()。
最新回复
(
0
)