Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <94.5370e00.266abb9b@aol.com>:
[ Rearrangement of paragraphs and snippage ]
> Hughes:
> >Denton was dismayed that biotic systems are more complicated
> >than some geneticists had expected in the 1960s, but the logical
> >connection between this and his belief in immutable natural
> >designs was left unexplained. And so it wen ton. The only thing
> >new here was the presence of these arguments at a meeting that
> >was ostensibly billed as being scientific.
> Bertvan: I'm confident Denton was not "dismayed" at the complexity
> of biotic systems. Such complexity is part of his argument that
> nature is designed.
In explaining his current beliefs, I believe Denton does claim to
have been dismayed by the complexity of biotic systems if such
complexity was to be solely explained by chance with natural
selection.
> Nor does Denton believe in "immutable
> natural designs". I've heard of no ID who does.
I don't think you know very much about Denton's beliefs. In
his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton
argues for a typological model of nature - a model in which
"...all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a
particular class [is] merely a variation on an underlying theme
or design which [is] fundamentally invariant or immutable"
(Denton, 1985, p. 94).
> Denton, Nelson and Wells are scientists, even though they
> entertain theories with which Hughs disagrees. Such misstatements
> of Denton's position destroys Hughes credibility as a scientist,
> as far as I am concerned.
Okay... what if you've simply misunderstood the alleged
misstatements?
> Bertvan:
> Accusing someone with whom you disagree of "egregious errors"
> without being specific hardly sounds scientific. Nor does it
> inspire confidence in the accuser. I suspect that if anyone
> had made an "egregious scientific error", Hughes would have
> gleefully reported it, rather than feeling depressed. You
> disagree?
I'm not so sure. Would Hughes' reaction be much different if he
was confronted by a conference of young-earth creationists? I
doubt he'd bother to mention their egregious errors, either --
it would needlessly dignify their whole enterprise.
You seem to be convinced that mainstream scientists are the
losing team sullenly aware of the strides of progress being made
by the winning team ID but ready to pounce on any bad science--
if they could just find any. I just don't see any evidence
that this reflects reality.
What's the number one supporting argument that comes to mind
for ID? "It's all so, so COMPlicated!" How can mainstream
science take that seriously in light of that fact that all of
recorded history has been a learning process of how complicated
unthinking, unintelligent processes really are (and that's before
we get into evolution at all)?
> Hughes:
> >Although the
> >Chenjian fauna does forcefully remind us that many body plans were firmly
> >established by early in the Cambrian, it does little more than focus
> >attention on the interesting things that happened around the
> >Precambrian/Cambrian boundary. The "phylogenetic lawn" idea is hardly new
> >(recall, for example, Gould's *Wonderful life*), and is clearly an
> >inaccurate view. Given the generous way in which scientists at the meeting
> >explained this an other matters to those allied with the Discovery
> >Institute it is disappointing to find commentaries in the *Wall Street
> >Journal* (August 16, 1999) proclaiming that Chinese scientists have new
> >evidence that questions the very basis of evolution. Predictably enough,
> >the Discovery Institute turns out to be uninterested in scientific rigor,
> >and they will do whatever it takes to promote their agenda, including
> >taking advantage of Chinese scholars. Creationism is not only a specter
> >that haunts rationality in the United States, but it is also willing to
> >employ a little cultural imperialism if it furthers the cause.
>
> Bertvan:
> Wow! Creationism has captured the Chinese Communist party!! ;-)
> I don't think anyone claims Chinese scientists have new
> evidence that questions the very basis of evolution. Like some
> of us in the US, they might question Darwinism, "random mutation
> and natural selection" as an explanation for macro evolution.
> I find Hughes' suggestion that Chinese scholars are "being
> bought" by people promoting creationism in poor taste.
Watch out with the quote marks; those weren't Hughes' words.
At worst, he suggests that certain Chinese scientists may have
been duped by a political agenda.
> I don't
> expect you to defend Hughes' words, Tedd, but you did ask where
> I disagreed . You claim Hughes is "quite an expert on Cambrian
> life forms", and that may well be. One can become an "quite an
> expert" on such a body of knowledge and still be small minded.
I, too, wish Hughes had provided more information. However,
I think that will come up in time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 04 2000 - 02:37:53 EDT