>Group
>
>Due to an overwhelming response (seriously, I do thank those few
>lurkers who sent me appreciative notes), here is my next installment
>of my series on the Difficulties of Darwinism.
>
>As always, comments and criticisms would be much appreciated!
>
OK, I'll give a few (hopefully) short comments.
>God bless.
>
>Steve
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>THE DIFFICULTIES OF DARWINISM 1.5
>
>1. INTRODUCTION
>
>[continued]
>
>1.4.2. MANY BIOLOGISTS PAST AND PRESENT HAVE NOT FULLY ACCEPTED
>DARWIN'S THEORY
>
There is a danger that this might turn into something analogous
to an argument from authority. Look for an expert that says
what you hope for. Then take comfort in this without looking
further. I'm not saying Steve is promoting this, just that
there is a tendency for some to take this sort of view.
I think the "correct" response to this is that it really
doesn't matter that some biologists haven't fully accepted
Darwin's theory. In an "ideal" world one would put those
issues aside and look at the evidence. Even so, I know
that this "discovery" (that not all biologists fully
accept ...) did have an impact on me. It wasn't all that
long ago that I started studying these things and so
I can remember my reaction very well. This "discovery"
increased considerably my confidence in the integrity of
evolutionary biologists and other scientists in related
disciplines. From my experiences in academia, uniform
agreement on any theory is highly irregular.
>Popular book on evolution often give the impression that it is
>accepted by all scientists. For example, Isaac Asimov writes that:
>"the evidence in favor of evolution is so strong that no reputable
>biologist doubts the fact ." (Asimov, 1981, p40). Usually the
>vaguer term "evolution" is employed, rather than the more specific
>Darwin's theory of evolution, which many reputable biologists do in
>fact doubt.
>
The first sentence should be a little clearer. Popular books
give the impression that _what_ is accepted, evolution or
Darwin's theory? The sentence implies evolution to me,
but the first time I read it I took it as Darwin's theory,
probably in view of the title of this section.
Deleted the rest. Very very interesting historical stuff
Steve. Good job.
Brian Harper
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
214 Boyd Lab
155 W. Woodruff Ave
Columbus, OH 43210
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert,