> You said, "the great majority of biologists believe that...evolution. . .some
> flavor of Darwinism is the explanation of the diversity of life on earth."
> Diversity can be explained pretty well by natural selection. But it is not
> the only problem. Another one is that life on earth is _organized_ in a
> hierarchical fashion. The organized hierarchy is much more difficult to
> explain in Darwinian terms, because it was built from the top down, not from
> the bottom up as Darwin predicted.
Could you explain this statement? Why is organized heirarchy difficult to explain
in Darwinian terms?
> I think Al would agree with your general thrust. He simply said that
> evolution should be taught conditionally. His conclusion was
>
> "To return to our original question then: should Creationism be taught in the
> public schools? Should evolution? The answer is in each case the same: no,
> neither should be taught unconditionally; but yes, each should be taught
> conditionally.".
I don't understand what it is he means by this. What is the real difference
between teaching something "conditionally" and "unconditionally"?
Ed