>Three guys are hiking in a forest. One of them says to the others,
>"Hey, we're lost!"
>
>But the other two don't want to hear that news. "Baloney," they say.
>"We're not interested in hearing that we're lost, unless you know the
>exact route out of here.
>
I would agree with this IF the article were published in a journal which
those "lost in the forest" evolutionary biologists would read. As it is, it
is published in a journal where those who supposedly know the way out of the
forest will be the primary readership but most of them are not scietifically
trained biologists. I do not know if you submitted this to a biological
journal or not but the above reasoning should have led y'all to at least try
one and then published in Origins and Design if you were rejected.
I would say that in general, it is the last statement above is that we
should be doing, showing a better way out of the forest. Very few paradigms
are changed by merely saying there are problems. I will agree that even
showing a superior solution does not always change minds but at least one
can work on the next generation when you have a better solution.
>Can you see that identifying problems with a current theory bears
>no necessary logical relation to having a better candidate?
>
>In any case, John and I are working on the problem of homology from
>a design standpoint. In 1998, we plan to submit a couple of papers on the
>topic, and complete a book MS (part of which deals with homology).
I am delighted to hear this and will look forward to seeing it.
But
>the only thing worse than not offering a hypothesis for an interesting
>open problem is offering a half-baked, incomplete one. On the Internet.
>
>That's it for me. Check out the bibliography we posted.
As usual, I have ordered the articles. And I thank you for the bibliography.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm