jrg13 at PSU.EDU
Fri Apr 12 09:04:43 CDT 2002
>Again I'm not aware that anyone in science accepts anything without
Perhaps so. I was covering all bets. I notice that many Darwinian
dispersalists appear to accept Darwinian centers of origin without any
evidence (i.e. its an article of faith that there are such things and
biogeographic patterns are accordingly interpreted that way). Either way,
its not problematic for the points I was raising.
>Returning to your original starting point about doctrine. If the Science and
>Creationism booklet has a certain tone that 'only we scientists know best'
>then that is unfortunate.
>If there are finely debatable statements that also is
>unfortunate, but hardly unusual in 'pop sci'.
These 'finely' debatable statements would not be a problem if the emphasis
of the booklet was not on doctrine.
>Overall, if imperfect, it does
>seem to have helpful content for its intended audience to consider.
If it is seen to be helpful to have evolution taught as a doctrine then of
course it will be helpful. My criticism is not over 'finely debatable
statements' as such, but with the view that the best way to present the
science of evolution to the public and to students is as a doctrine of beliefs.
More information about the Taxacom