Replies

Until you can, I consider my previous question: "Is the notable lack of controversy you cite really evidence of a lack of controversy or is it evidence of an effective campaign to suppress dissenting views?" to be unanswered.

I did six years of grad school, half of it in evolution and closely related subjects.

If there was some grand conspiracy, nobody invited me.

I had (I think) three seminars in "Problems in Evolution." All dealt with the fine details of interpretation of the various finds. There was a lot of change going on in classification in those years, as new finds were made and argued.

There was no campaign that I saw to suppress any views. Rather, there was a detailed study of the evidence. And that means detailed; hours in the bone lab with the actual specimens (casts of course), and lots of quizzes on the fine details.

That is one thing that is often missing in the debates on these threads, on both sides but mostly on the side of the creationists. They generally have not studied the evidence very closely. I have seen more cases where they have reverted to Biblical quotations to prove a point than to relying on the fine details of morphology or DNA.

So, to answer your question: there is a lot of controversy in evolution, but it is over interpretation of the evidence. It is not between evolution and particular religious views.

Dissenting views in evolution or any other science have only to bring scientific evidence to the argument and they will be listened to. But the claims we hear almost daily on these threads will not do it: "Its just a theory" & "Where you there?" & "There's no evidence" are just a few of the highlights.

An aside, to all: Much of this thread was devoted to picking on Darwin and a few of his comments. You want to battle evolution? Better start reading Johanson and White and the geneticists. Brush up on geology and radiometric dating too. Darwin hasn't had a new idea in a century, so if you are battling his comments you are a century behind.

Now, back to work again.

I had (I think) three seminars in "Problems in Evolution." All dealt with the fine details of interpretation of the various finds.

Yep. Try to get a lot of people to ACCEPT the same set of conclusions, and call it scientific discovery! Consensus is what they mean about acceptance. You are either for or agin!

An aside, to all: Much of this thread was devoted to picking on Darwin and a few of his comments. You want to battle evolution? Better start reading Johanson and White and the geneticists. Brush up on geology and radiometric dating too. Darwin hasn't had a new idea in a century, so if you are battling his comments you are a century behind.

The article was about the fossil record and Darwin. That's why we are "picking" on Darwin.

My interest isn't in evolution per se. But the history of science and how science advances. Not exactly free from human folly and ego.

Have you read:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I'm kind of an odd fish here. I believe in a Creator (based on thinking through the Big Bang cycle to its ultimate beginning and reflecting on the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter) and I accept the fact that, based on reasonable interpretation of careful observation, evolution appears to be the mechanism behind how life speciated once it arose. That puts me at odds with both Evolution"ists" and Creation"ists". IMO, the One does not exclude the other.

But the how or the even if One connects to the other poses other questions and the conculsions you draw from that meditation is really a matter of personal philosophy and/or belief that can lead to many separate paths.

I take your point concerning Darwin and the reading list. Yes, his name does seem to draw a lot of fire whether it is personally deserved or not.