This is from the interview that is the basis of the thread.
Suzan Mazur: But there are other mechanisms contributing to evolution. The public is not being told about this. Not informing the public is not really serving the public.
David Deamer: The Astrobiology Primer and the Origins of Life program are intended for a lay audience. Biologists agree that life started simple and became more complex through a natural process, and at the most general level we call that process evolution.
If I were teaching an advanced class in evolutionary biology to a college level audience, they would have enough preparation to deal with the other aspects that go into the evolutionary process beyond Darwin’s initial explanation. It takes a lot of background to understand the details that contribute to the evolutionary process.
For instance, the Altenberg 16 you have written about are professional biologists who are trying to go beyond the simplistic explanations that involve nothing more than natural selection. They are bringing to the table ideas that require considerable knowledge to understand their argument.
I certainly wouldn’t want to state that natural selection is the only process driving evolution, but if I am going to explain what that means my audience needs to have enough information to understand the questions that are being raised.
Suzan Mazur: But as Stuart Newman, one of the Altenberg 16 scientists has pointed out, there would be more of an acceptance of evolution if the science was where it should be. He also says “old science” is being pushed in the mainstream media.
David Deamer: I get the point. Unfortunately, creationists have politicized the science so much that the very fact of evolution is being questioned.
Perhaps this is why scientists tend to fall back on the bedrock of Darwin’s basic concepts when they speak in a public forum. No one denies the factual basis of evolution, but we are still learning how evolution takes place, particularly in animal and plant populations in ecosystems.
I have debated creationists and intelligent design people in public forums, and my impression is that they are not looking for scientific truth. Instead they are working to advance their political aim, which is to get Christian fundamentalism taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution.
ON nearly every thread you bring your obsession with abiogenesis, as if there is some magic barrier that will prevent science from figuring out how life began. It’s just another argument from gaps, and it’s a really stupid position to hold, because the gaps will erode.
For the record, ignorance of some aspect of history does not invalidate known history. Not knowing exactly how and when the first humans came to America does not mean that There were no humans to greet Columbus, nor does it suggest they were poofed into existence just before he arrived. Nor does it mean we must ignore or withhold teaching American history until the problem of origins is settled.