Reflectorites
Subject: Re: Jonathan Wells' new book Icons of Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:06:59 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
SJ>This fall, there has appeared a scientifically authoritative book casting
>>grave doubt on the whole basis of these confident illustrations. Dr.
>>Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from the University of
>>California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute,
>>in his Icons of Evolution does more than cast doubt. >>
HX>Speaking of icons....
>
>Tell us Steve - have you read any of Wells' technical/original research? No?
>Well, it is actually not that hard to find. And you could read all of it in
>30 minutes or so. This 'molecular and cell biologist' - whom, by the way,
>got his degree from Berekely then split but continues to use the affiliation
>for obvious reasons
What is Huxter's point here? It says "a molecular and cell biologist *from*
[not at] the University of California at Berkeley".
Wells is not obliged to remain at Berkeley for the rest of his career, and he
is perfectly entitled to mention where he got his Ph.D.
HX> - has published a whopping THREE scientific publications.
"THREE scientific publications" doesn't sound bad at all to me, considering
Wells has only recently (i.e. in the last few years) got his Ph.D.
But anyway, so what? This might seem important to Huxter if he is a
research scientist, but I doubt that it would be important to the other
99.9% of the population. If Wells was continuing in research that might be
a valid point but he isn't. He has bigger fish to fry. Besides, Wells, like
every other Ph.D has it for *life*, regardless if they never publish another
paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
BTW how many scientific publications has *Huxter* published, when, and
what are *their* titles?
HX>I guess he must be an expert on all aspects of evolution, what with such an
>impressive scientific background.
Wells does not claim to be "an expert on all aspects of evolution."
But the interesting thing here is the double-standard that evolutionists claim
that their theory is so simple to understand that even school kids in Kansas
can (and indeed *must*) be taught it. Yet when a Ph.D in biology from
Berkeley criticised it, it suddenly becomes so hard to understand that one
must be "an expert on all aspects of evolution".
HX>Of course, he also has a Ph.D. in some
>aspect of religion, wherein his thesis was on how bad the teaching of
>evolution is to the minds of youngsters.
So Wells has *two* Ph.D's? What is Huxter's qualifications?
Also Well's doesn't hide behind a pseudonym. Why does Huxter? I can
understand someone who is a creationist or anti evolutionist scientist at a
secular university being worried that if his name became known, he might
be discriminated against by his evolutionist superiors. But that presumably
doesn't apply to Huxter unless he is secretly on the staff of the ICR!
HX>Yeah, I'd hang my hat on his every word. Ad hom, right? Not really.
Who would?
HX>In
>addition to the rebuttals mentioned by others, wherein Wells tends to ...
>shall we say, exaggerate a bit,
Doesn't *everyone*? Including Huxter?
HX>it is hardly ad hominem to take the words of
>one with a grain of salt
I am sure that Wells would be quite happy with people not uncritically
accepting what he said but checking it up for themselves.
HX>who has in the past demonstrated a distinct lack of
>expertise on the very area he writes about.
Wells has a Ph.D in biology from Berkeley and another in theology (from
Princeton?) so I presume to ost fair-minded people would qualify as
having "expertise on the very area" namely creation/evoution "he writes
about."
But see above on the evolutionist double standard. I haven't noticed
Huxter remonstrating with evolutionists on this List who have no formal
"expertise on the very area", namely creation/evolution that *they* write
about.
HX>But I'm sure his book or pamphlet or whatever it is will be gobbled up by
>folks like DNAunion....
I understand it is being "gobbled up by" a *lot* of "folks"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't we see gradual transition in the sequences of fossils? According
to Darwin, and the current neo-Darwinists, the fossil record has gaps in it
because of the haphazard way in which fossilization occurs-it is bound to
be an imperfect record of the history of life. But is it? Is the jerky and
abrupt nature of the record really just due to 'gaps', or does it reflect the
way evolution actually happened? There is a strong feeling among leading
palaeontologists that the punctuated history shown by fossils reflects the
way life has evolved-in leaps and bounds rather than in gradual transition.
There is also a growing sense that there is much more to understanding
'macroevolution'-the large-scale picture one gets from the fossils-than the
simple idea of natural selection can alone explain." (Leith B., "The Descent
of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London,
1982, p.23)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 20:37:07 EDT