>Tedd: A quote from Margulis
>... Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great
>disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the
>public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is
>in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on
> is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma."
Link from Tedd:
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm:
Throughout her writings, Margulis contends that symbiosis is a major
driving force behind evolution. In her opinion, cooperation,
interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms allowed for life's
eventual global dominance. As a result, Darwin's notion of evolution as
the "survival of the fittest," a continual competition among individuals
and species, is incomplete. According to Margulis and Sagan (1986),
"Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking." Rather
than focus solely on the elimination of competitors, Margulis' view of
evolution downplays competition itself on the basis of symbiotic
relationships.
Hi Tedd:
Thank you for the article on the endosymbiotic evolution of the cell.
Although I was familiar with some of it, the article was great. I've also
heard that Margulis believes some form of consciousness is a characteristic
of all life. (Never found a direct quote.) It appears even Margulis feels
obligated to occasionally pay lip service to the "battle against
creationists". However it is not "evolution" that most skeptics question.
It is Darwinism - "random mutation and natural selection as an explanation of
macro evolution." If biologists are really as bothered by ID as these
debates would indicate, the issue could be easily defused. The quickest way
to assure the public biologists are not "shoring up of dogma" would be to
admit how much is not known. A group of prominent biologists might issue a
public statement such as:
"We have no idea how most of the diversity of life occurred, and while many
biologists believe it was the result of "random mutation and natural
selection" (Darwinism), others believe mutations are rarely random and
natural selection never 'designed' anything."
However, if biologists admitted ignorance, no one's beliefs, including ID,
OEC or even YEC, could be declared definitely untrue. This would
apparently be intolerable to those strident Darwin-defenders who appear more
concerned with fighting religion than in science. So we are treated to
equivocal statements such as "Margulis believes Darwin's notion of evolution
as the 'survival of the fittest', a continual competition among individuals
and species, is incomplete."
Many facts of history are in dispute, yet the historians don't take to the
courts to ensure only one version is taught. Historians are content to live
with a diversity of views. Even histories of religions manage to accommodate
different versions. Debate over the history of the Holocaust evokes great
emotion, but so far no one has tried to have the minority view legally
declared "not history". Such an attempt would probably stir up support for a
now-unpopular view. Even belief in YEC could do to no harm to biology if it
were politely tolerated. If anything causes loss of respect for science, it
will be the ridiculous attempt to marginalize dissent by labeling everyone a
"creationist" who is skeptical of "random mutation and natural selection", or
who entertains the possibility teleology, or who suggests the universe might
be the result of a rational design.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 20 2000 - 13:26:40 EDT