In a message dated 9/13/2000 3:38:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<<
`There exists, as well, a generally silent group of students engaged
in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current
thought but say and write little because they are not particularly
interested do not see that controversy over evolution is of any
particular importance, or are so strongly in disagreement that it
seems futile to undertake the monumental task of controverting the
immense body of information and theory that exists in the
formulation of modern thinking It is, of course, difficult to judge
the size and composition of this silent segment but there is no doubt
that the numbers are not inconsiderable.' (Olson E.C., in Tax S.,
ed., "Evolution after Darwin," Vol. 1, 1960, p.523)
(Gish D.T., in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?", 1996, p.268).
But the problem is that RM&NS is the least falsifiable naturalistic
theory so the minority of Neo-Darwinists are able to rule the majority.
This is not to say that this silent large minority (or even majority) of
biologists would agree with ID. Most of them would have their own
favourite `hobby horse' mechanism, or just assume that it must have been
some combination of naturalistic mechanisms, even if we don't know what
they were.
>>
You seem to be jumping to conclusions here based on a logical leap from the
quote to an assertion that the minority is large and that their arguments are
based on scientific rather than emotional arguments.
Is it btw so bad to assume that which has worked so well in the past and
admit that we do not presently know all the details. Or should we instead let
our ignorance lead us to infer 'design'?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 01:27:23 EDT