🚀 go-pugleaf

First, I must ask that after this reply that we take the discussion
over to talk.origins.

In article 24131@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, jfe7w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher Elder) writes:
>I highly recommend the following book for those truly
>interested in the fascinating question of our origins:
>
> "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis"
>  by Michael Denton
>  published in 1986 by Adler & Adler, Maryland.
>
>Professor Denton lucidly and systematically devastates 
>the validity of macro-evolution as a _scientific_ theory, 
>showing how it is essentially an unsubstantiated "leap of faith"
>from the observable process of minor adaptation (micro-evolution).
I have not read the book, so I cannot comment directly. However, the
tactic Denton takes, according to the reviewer, is a common attack
in creationist circles. Actually, there are two common elements.
First, the author uses the "Yes, but what about..." tactic. Here
the author says, "OK, I'll grant you evolution over the short term,
like a new species. BUT we haven't seen big evolution, like the
formation of a new order, in the wild, so it can't be true." With
little effort, this process can be repeated almost indefinately.
The second is to attack the theory without giving a better
alternative theory. In the case of creationists, the argument
goes "Evolution is wrong, therefore God created the universe 
as written in Genesis in the King James Bible."

>This is particularly interesting as he is both an expert
>in the field of cell biology, and does not apparently,
>believe in a Creator.  
I would tend to doubt that. I suggest you ask over in talk.origins.
Someone there should know more about him, including his
qualifications and his beliefs.

>He suggests that the conquest of
>evolution as THE modern explanation for our origins,
>despite its obvious and glaring scientific weaknesses,
>is due to there being no alternative rationalistic
>competing theory.
Then Denton is very wrong, _if_ that is his thesis. Evolution is the
accepted theory because it explains the available evidence, is
falsifiable and is testable. It took years of debate plus new evidence
from astronomy, geology, physics, and biology to prove Darwin's original
hypothesis.
>
>-john elder


---
Joseph Poutre, aka The Mad Mathematician	N2KOW
jpoutre@shearson.com
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house.         -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"