Oragnutan relationships

Fri Apr 12 12:34:03 CDT 2002

At 12:52 PM 4/12/02 -0400, John R. Grehan wrote:
>>reasonable, in order to see if it works.  In other words, some people might
>>use the "center of origin" concept and, finding it useful, continue with it
>>even in the absence of proper evidence.
>>Robin K Panza
>Agreed. Some people (not me) also find the flat earth theory 'useful' and
>continue with it even in the absence of 'proper" evidence.

Do you mean to imply, from this, that the "center of origin" concept has
little or no more validity than the flat earth theory?


> From Dick
>"I'm not sure I understand your point. The fact that there is disagreement
>vertebrate systematists on the exact pattern of relationships among the
>great apes
>is not relevant to criticisms of the tenets of modern evolutionary biology.
>The point I was making was that the Academy was presenting a view as if it
>were the fact or model when in actual fact it was not.
>Again, am I missing something here?"
>My view (minority of one probably) is that it is a mistake to present and
>teach evolution as a doctrine. The Academy states that evolution is the
>only "scientific' explanation for why the universe is the way it is today.
>This is presenting evolution as a "scientific" doctrine of truth, creating
>a dichotomy between what is science and what is not. There is nothing in
>the booklet that gives any indication of what is the science of evolution,
>just a whole series of assertions about the truth of the universe. I have
>noticed in all other biological disciplines, and the disciplines of
>chemistry and physics, the 'science' of those disciplines is not the models
>('truths') they generate (e.g. Krebs cycle, the structure of an atom etc),
>but the methodological process of the research programs that generate the
>models that themselves are used to gain greater insight into those
>processes being investigated. When it comes to the 'science' of evolution
>this emphasis seems to be dropped in favor of arguing universal truths with
>creationists. After reading the book I had no clue as to what was the
>science of evolution. And from what I have seen of this book and other
>examples of evolution being taught in schools (including my experience in
>New Zealand) its no wonder so many people are skeptical. It is my view
>(again probably a minority of one) that much of the problem with evolution
>is generated by the way evolutionists and associated educators want to
>focus on doctrine.
>John Grehan
>John Grehan
>Frost Entomological Museum
>Pennsylvania State University
>Department of Entomology
>501 ASI Building
>University Park, PA 16802. USA.
>Phone: (814) 863-2865
>Fax: (814) 865-3048
>Frost Museum

More information about the Taxacom mailing list