RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> How does he handle a retro viral sequence imbedded in human and chimp
> DNA at the same locus point in each? How does he think it got there,
> and what functionality would it serve? And how would it be "reasonable"
> if he rejects common descent? In spite of his disavowal of a wealth of
> evidence that points to mutual-shared common ancestry, yet his
> explanation is "reasonable"? Or do you mean that using "fuzzy" logic
> Rana makes a simularly clever argument just as Phil Johnson uses the
> cunning art of lawyerly persuasion in "Darwin on Trial"? In spite of
> being dead wrong Rana sounds right? Is that what you meant?

Rana claims that those retroviruses have functions, one of which is to
protect from retroviral infection.

Rana explains many of the evidences used to support evolution and then
gives his response to them. Ironically, a reader who is not an
evolutionist and is not familiar with these pro-evolution arguments may
actually become more open to evolutionary thinking after reading the book,
which surely was not the writer's intent.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mthematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
Received on Sat Apr 15 18:49:41 2006