In a message dated 1/4/02 6:22:42 PM Mountain Standard Time,
idea@sdcc3.ucsd.edu writes:
> To accomodate this, we've constructed a definition of Darwinism which
> is, "the scientific theory which, operating under the philosophies of
> materialism and naturalism, makes the assertion that life today is the
> result of purely natural processes, such as the natural chemical origins
> of the first cell, and a mutatation-selection mechanism causing
> microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, which account for the origins
> of all cellular functions, morphologies, and common ancestry through
> descent with modification for all life forms."
It is still not clear to me what this "Darwinism" you are attacking consists
of at the fundamental level.
Some of what you wrote suggests that you define "Darwinism" just as a set of
scientific hypotheses. If that is the case, you should drop the pejorative
language about the philosophy you think has led to those hypotheses (at least
in the basic definition, discussing elsewhere why you think the science has
gone off track would be fair game). The truth or falsity of a scientific
hypothesis does not depend on the motives for its advancement.
If, on the other hand, you define "Darwinism" as the union of evolutionary
science AND materialistic philosophy, then you should make it clearer that
you are not talking solely about the science. In particular, if this is the
case it is wrong to begin with "Darwinism is the scientific theory ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2002 - 00:11:30 EST