>>The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000, Tuesday, Pg. E1
>>HEADLINE: A LITTLE FISH CHALLENGES A GIANT OF SCIENCE
>BYLINE: By Fred Heeren, GLOBE CORRESPONDENT
>> The debate over Haikouella casts Western scientists in the unlikely
>>role of defending themselves against charges of ideological blindness from
>>scientists in Communist China. Chinese officials argue that the theory of
>>evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are
>>reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving comfort to those who
>>believe in a biblical creation.
Susan
>That is only partly the case
Bertvan:
Hi Susan, Are you saying Western scientists are only partly guilty of
ideological blindness?
Globe:
>> "Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the
>>Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils
>>in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific
>>theory. . . . In fact, evolution eventually changed into a
>>religion."
Susan:
>This is straight out of Creationist literature, almost word for word.
>Religions are static. They are RIGHT therefore they may never change (they
>do, of course, evolve over time, but it's considered tacky to notice).
>Paley's idea, published in 1803, is still alive and kicking unchanged 200
>years later. It's been dressed up in new clothes, sanitized of it's
>religious language, but unchanged.
Bertvan:
I understand you believe anyone considering ID is a "stealth creationist".
Are also you claiming the Chinese, maybe the whole Chinese Communist Party,
are also "stealth creationists"? (I agree that Paley's idea is still alive
and kicking.)
Globe:
>> "NeoDarwinism is dead," said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook
>>writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent
>>gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where
>>Chen had found his first impressions of Haikouella five years ago.
Susan:
>He is also author of publications such as: (Snip scientific publications)
>so I wonder why he would say that? Could this sound byte be out of context?
Bertvan:
Are you suggesting no one who is peer reviewed could not possibly admit,
"NeoDarwinism is dead", regardless of the evidence? Therefore the quotation
must be out of context?
Globe:
>> According to Chen, the two main forces of evolution espoused by
>>neoDarwinism, natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and random
>>genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many new
>>genetic forms.
> > "Harmony can be a driving force [of evolution], too," Chen proposed at
>t>he Chengjiang conference.
Susan:
>If the 2nd paragraph above is supposed to say the same thing as the first
>paragraph above, it doesn't. This is very frustrating. I have a feeling a
>lot was left out of this article. (Though I'm not suggesting Bertvan edited
>it.) It sounds like Chen is arguing against a straw man. "Harmony" can be a
>very dandy survival mechanism, conferring fitness on a population.
>Cooperation is the main human survival mechanism. It's old news. So what's
>the "too"? In addition to what?
Bertvan:
Personally, I don't even know what Chen means by "Harmony", but apparently
Susan knows, (it's a "survival mechanism") and it is "old news" to her.
Globe:
>> But conferences such as the one in Chengjiang may be changing some
>>views. One of the symposium organizers, paleontologist David Bottjer of the
>>University of Southern California in Los Angeles, said he disagrees with
>>the idea of rapid evolution,
>but he conceded, "The Cambrian Explosion is
>>going to tell us something different about evolution, in the sense that
>>it's not the same story that we have always been taught."
Susan:
>That's funny. It sounds like he's perfectly willing to accept new
>information as it comes in and modify the theory in light of that new
>information. Religion is static. Science is not.
Bertvan:
Most of us have been skeptical of "random mutation and natural selection"
(NeoDarwinism). That is what most of us have been debating. Susan is the one
who always wants to debate religion. If "science" (whoever that is) is now
willing to admit RM&NS probably did not play a major role in evolution, most
of us would no longer have a quarrel with "science".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
P.S.
I have been embarrassed to have posted personal mail on the reflector. It
finally occurred to me I should apologize publicly, which I now do. I
sincerely hope I will never do such a thing again.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 11:15:18 EDT