Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

Especially of interest is an earlier testimony by Wells

<quote>Q. Doctor Wells, you state that neo-Darwinian evolution and
biological evolution are not the same, how are they different?

A. Well, they're often confused, as they have been here. But I know
people who would call themselves evolutionists who distinctly disavow
neo-Darwinism. So there has to be a larger class of evolutionists and
some general sense that living things have changed over time by some
mechanism which we don't yet know as opposed to neo-Darwinian
evolutionists who think that the change happened by neo-Darwinian
mechanisms. So there's a distinction in the scientific community.

Q. Okay. I understand the thought about neo-Darwinian evolutionists.
But if someone calls themselves a biological evolutionist, what does
that imply or how is that different?

A. Well, I think you'd have to ask each individual. It might mean, for
example, they will be-- an interest in common ancestry, so everything
shares a common ancestry, but the mechanism of change are something
other than what Darwin or neo-Darwinians proposes. But you'd have to
ask each individual what he means or what she means.</quote>

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo2.html

Alexanian wrote

<quote>I have not read Icons of Evolution but my understanding is that
Wells documented some goofs the advocated of evolutionary theory had
made. However, I do agree that one cannot use, say, the Piltdown
fiasco as proof that evolutionary theory is wrong.
</quote>

What about: The Cambrian, common descent and the tree of life,
Haeckel, Archaeopteryx, human evolution, Peppered moth for example?

Where these 'goofs' made by advocates of evolutionary theory? Wells'
nonsense has found much uptake amongst creationists, violating St
Augustine's fair warning.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 2 20:21:20 2007