Fast rational response to aforementioned creationist stupidity

It didn't take long for the Swedish scientific and skeptic community to answer the hideously misguided article I described in my previous post. Soon after I'd written my post here no less than three rebukes, by Patrick Lindenfors, Per Edman and Lars Johan Erkell, surfaced on Newsmill. Links here, here and here (in Swedish).

>>Update March 8 - There's also this summary from evolutionsteori.se (also in Swedish).

All three articles rebuke the ridiculous claim often made by creationists that it's not "allowed" to question Darwin, by rightfully pointing out that there are no holy cows in science and that Darwin, who lived more than a century ago, couldn't possibly have gotten the whole story right. Evolutionary science is a living and developing beast. Those who really "question Darwin" and bring evolutionary science forwards do so from the field, the lab bench and the pages of scientific journals, not from religious fundamentalist think tanks.

Lindenfors and Erkell also focus on the so-called "icons of evolution", Haeckel's embryos, Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit flies, that supposedly don't confirm evolution at all according to the creationists. Well, evolution doesn't stand and fall on individual examples, and as especially Erkell is skilled at pointing out, the research behind the latter two examples was not done in order to confirm or invalidate evolutionary theory, but rather to explore particular mechanisms.

Let it be a lesson. Don't commit the foolishness of not accepting evolution simply because you cannot see it happening in front of your eyes.

Swedish blog tags: Pseudovetenskap, Kreationism, Newsmill, Claphaminstitutet
Technorati tags: Pseudoscience, Creationism