I have slowly abandonded much of ID because of the type of God it seems to
demand and for the many fine responses to locked down intervention on this
list but this sort of stuff below is really disturbing. I would have
imagined the ID movement a sort of sharpening stone for anyone who wishes
to have to slop removed from their ideas. There are still so many mysteries
maybe they will come across something useful but with mindsets like this
you will never see it. Again not into ID myself but something beyond the
personal attack tone bugs me. The insinuations against Chen's integrity are
weak.
Andrew
>...The most curious aspect of the meeting, and the most embarrassing for
>Western scientists (particularly those form the United States), was the
>presence of individuals supported by the Discovery Institute - a
>Seattle-based foundation that proclaims intelligent design as a scientific
>explanation for biological diversity. The involvement of te Institute came
>as a surprise to the more conventional attendees, especially when it became
>obvious that the Institute had played a key role in the organization of the
>conference, unbeknownst to the scientific community. Several talks were
>presented along this theme, the main thesis of which seemed to be the old
>Pallian arguments wrapped in a variety of molecular guises. Michael Denton
>spoke on what he saw as a failure of genetics to unveil a universal
>explanation for biological form, Paul Nelson on maternal effect genes, and
>Jonathan Wells on homeotic genes. It takes guts to expose yourself in this
>manner to a generally incredulous audience, but it also places special
>demands if science is your objective. I was depressed to find that my
>rudimentary understanding of molecular biology was sufficient to spot
>egregious errors, candidly dispatched by Eric Davidson. Well's claim that
>aspects of *Hox* gene control, instead of providing yet more evidence for
>homology and common ancestry, actually suggest that all metazoan phyla
>arose independently gives the flavor of what was offered. In doing so he
>effectively denied any defensible meaning in the words such as deuterosome
>or ecdysozoan, well established higher taxa which have been erected on
>characters other than those genes that influence segment identity. A bold
>claim, but one he could not reasonably defend as questioning revealed.
>Denton was dismayed that biotic systems are more complicated than some
>geneticists had expected in the 1960s, but the logical connection between
>this and his belief in immutable natural designs was left unexplained. And
>so it wen ton. The only thing new here was the presence of these arguments
>at a meeting that was ostensibly billed as being scientific.
>
>How does one deal with such situations? Those speaking were accompanied by
>a coterie of supporters, including a "cosmic reporter" and one-by-one
>scientists attending courteously answered their questions. Many of us,
>myself included, reluctantly agree to be interviewed on tape. As guests in
>China a major public blow-up was to be avoided, but looking back I wish I
>had been more aggressive. We are all used to arguing science, but we are
>not used to telling people that we suspect their motives. Perhaps we have
>to become so, because the extent, if any, to which Chinese colleagues had
>been made aware of the controversial nature of the Discovery Institute, and
>its political agenda within the United States, remained unclear. What was
>clear is that the Discovery Institute is actively encouraging Chinese
>scientists, by means of funding, to promote a view of the Chengjiang fauna
>to which they are sympathetic.
>
>Several Chinese scientists gave presentations that emphasized the sudden
>appearance of phyla, hinting at the need for a new "top-down" mechanism of
>evolution - music, of course, to creationionist ears. Although the
>Chenjian fauna does forcefully remind us that many body plans were firmly
>established by early in the Cambrian, it does little more than focus
>attention on the interesting things that happened around the
>Precambrian/Cambrian boundary. The "phylogenetic lawn" idea is hardly new
>(recall, for example, Gould's *Wonderful life*), and is clearly an
>inaccurate view. Given the generous way in which scientists at the meeting
>explained this an other matters to those allied with the Discovery
>Institute it is disappointing to find commentaries in the *Wall Street
>Journal* (August 16, 1999) proclaiming that Chinese scientists have new
>evidence that questions the very basis of evolution. Predictably enough,
>the Discovery Institute turns out to be uninterested in scientific rigor,
>and they will do whatever it takes to promote their agenda, including
>taking advantage of Chinese scholars. Creationism is not only a specter
>that haunts rationality in the United States, but it is also willing to
>employ a little cultural imperialism if it furthers the cause.
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:48:00 EDT