>
> Bertvan:
>> It is as offensive as it sounds, and seems typical among those people
>> zealously defending Neo Darwinism.
Bertvan:
What an awful error for me to make!! Even so, I doubt anyone would believe
Brian Harper would say such a thing. Brian Harper is among the most polite,
tolerant, open minded, well informed, reasonable people on this list.
>>
Kevin O'Brian:
>Only a non-scientist would confuse a legitimate, generally accepted
>explanation of a natural phenomenon for dogma.
Bertvan:
Except that "generally accepted explanation" is becoming less and less
generally accepted.
Kevin O'Brian:
>Only a non-scientist calls for "alternative explanations" after the real
>explanation has been discovered. And why is it only evolution that demands
>alternatives? Why not seek out alternatives to germ theory, immunology,
>electromagnetism, gravity, etc.? Why are these explanations any stronger
>than the accepted evolutionary explanations? Or is it that they are simply
>safer; that they do not challenge your prejudices the way that evolution
does?
Bertvan:
If it were true that scientists aren't interested in "alternative
explanations", that would be excellent argument for people outside the field
to keep an eye on them. Actually, I don't believe people in the other fields
you mention would become indignant over criticism. Maybe criticism doesn't
challenge the prejudices of scientists in the fields of germ theory,
immunology, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.
Bertvan