>Whoa! Did miss something here? For the past two or three years I have
>been focusing pretty much on learning the nuts and bolts (or bones and
>muscles) of Physical Anthropology, and have not really kept up with the
>broader theoretical side of things - particularly the "ID" thing. What
>exactly does Eugenie mean by ...."former antievolutionist Michael Denton..."
>I have "Theory in Crisis" in my collection, and the word former does not
>leap into my mind as I recall his arguments.
Denton's first book "Evolution:A Theory in Crises" has been widely seen as
a argument against common descent. And, I myself find it hard to read it
in any other way. It argues for a typological view of taxa at both the
morphological and genetic level. This book has been extensively referred
to by critics of evolution. In fact it is often used as one of the primary
sources of authority by those rejecting evolution. It was one of the main
influences on Phil Johnson as he began his public critic of evolution.
Denton has, since the publication of this book, stated that he fully
accepts common descent, and claims that his original book has been
misinterpreted. He has written a new book "Nature's Destiny" which argues
for continuity in the history of life. He has also argued against special
creationist claims, and against Phil Johnson in particular. He still
argues for the insufficiency of Darwinian mechanisms in macroevolution.
We should take Denton's word for what he intended to argue in his first
book. However, I think that Genie is entirely justified in believing that
Denton has made a major switch in his position.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 22:06:34 EST