<<"Space alien nut" was lightheartedness, and I used it only because I was
fairly certain that Goodman isn't one. >>
That was not evident at all from your post. It was an ad hominem argument, and
as such should not be entertained. That you were serious is indicated by your
other statements, like:
<<...but that phrase "a startling new theory" doesn't sound to me like someone
interested in presenting an unbiased view of the current thinking. It sounds
like someone interested in presenting his own radical view...>>
I wonder what Glenn Morton thinks about that view!
I happen to like original thinkers...like Glenn [though we disagree], and
Walter ReMine and Jeffrey Goodman. They aren't marching lock step with the
crowd, which is much more likely to have that herd mentality, in my
experience. Especially the naturalistic crowd which thinks it has to guard the
Darwinian citadel.
I encourage you to read Goodman for yourself, analyze the data, respond to it
as you will. While some of the data needs to be updated [and Tattersall is a
great source for that], nothing in the ultimate conclusions has changed, as
far as I can see.
And don't worry about Ian Tattersall. There is a distinction between citing a
"mainstream" guy's analysis, and his CONCLUSIONS. Conclusions are tied to
initial premises. If those are naturalistic, the conclusions will be too. I
cite Tattersall because he is so objective and up front. I don't for a second
say he holds a supernatural premise. But he could, and his book would be just
as good. He would not be a "nut." In the case of Goodman, he and Tattersall
are in the same ballpark on the evidence, but Goodman is willing to bolt the
naturalistic prison. That doesn't make him a nut. I think that makes him a lot
more open to reality.
Jim