bertvan:
>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".
I've read recently that the old tactic of not dignifying creationism with a
response is largely being discarded for returning the attacks. So far all
most of the public has heard--apart from some high school biology classes
they slept through as teenagers--is creationist propaganda. It's time for
that to stop.
>However it is not "evolution" that most skeptics question.
>It is Darwinism - "random mutation and natural selection as an explanation of
>macro evolution."
can you substantiate that remark in any way? I can list quite a few URLs
that prove you wrong.
>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."
why would they issue a public statement of something so patently false?
(that we have *no* idea how) That does not reflect the beliefs of the vast
majority of the natural scientists in the world? (many? find a biologist or
even a medical doctor who doesn't!) and that is so obviously unprovable
(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.
for biologists to say "we don't exactly know how everything happened or
what all of the mechanisms are" is very easy and you can find statements
like that. Science has a "high level of confidence" but is never certain.
However, ID, OEC and YEC are all wishful thinking. They are religion. Not
science. Not knowing whether or not natural selection or drift are the only
mechanisms of evolution will not magically make Hovind, Gish or Morris
scientists.
>Many facts of history are in dispute, yet the historians don't take to the
>courts to ensure only one version is taught.
So far, nobody has proposed that we ignore real history and teach religion
in history classes.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 22 2000 - 17:45:26 EDT