Brian:
>In my experience, this impression is promoted by two extreme groups. One is a
>very narrow set of neo-Darwinists that are sometimes referred to as
>ultra-Darwinians
>(Eldredge) and Darwinian Fundamentalists (Gould). This group is not
>representative
>of either evolutionists in general or even of neo-Darwinians. Trying to
>promote them
>as such is equivalent to those evolutionists who try to paint all opponents
of
>neo-Darwinism as YEC's.
>The second group that promotes the impression you mention above are
extremists
>on the other side of the fence. Certain creationists who try to convince
>the general public
>that the "orthodox" scientific view is that of the ultra-Darwinians. It is
>very convenient for them
>if the public views them as somehow oppressed by "the elite", the high
>priests of
>science.
Hi Brian,
I suspect - hope - you are right. However the ultra Darwinists have
succeeded in convincing the public their interpretation of evolution is "the
orthodox view". I can understand why scientists wouldn't want to waste their
time arguing on these discussion boards. But why didn't some "reasonable"
biologists speak up in support of the Kansas school board, which did nothing
more than suggest that "random mutation and natural selection" not be taught
as the known mechanism behind macro evolution? You once said that
materialism is dead. Who are the biologists informing the public that
materialism is not an essential part of biology? The only ones I've heard
are those active in the ID movement. Is the ID movement accepted as a
legitimate by most biologists? I believe academic freedom is pretty healthy
at the moment. I wish a few biologists would try to convince me that is also
true in biology.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 11:57:31 EST