I have no desire to dissuade anyone from believing macro evolution is the
result of "random mutation and natural selection". I have no desire to
change the beliefs of any creationist--whether it be a literal translation
of Genesis or belief that some god designed and created the laws of nature.
As long as all ideas are on the table for consideration, I have confidence
whatever eventually emerges will be an approximation of the truth.
I realize one reason for such apparent intolerance is a sincere belief that
children have to be protected from "false doctrines". Most parents wish it
were easier to indoctrinate their children--especially teenagers. In this
changing world, maybe it would be safer if children were to learn for
themselves how to judge ideas--including those ideas rejected by such
authoritative figures as parents and the esteemed institution of science.
Panspermia--design--Neo Lamarckism-- Kauffman's innate, emergent
order--Shapiro's live, creative genome-- all sound interesting to me, and
time will tell if evidence for any of them can be developed. If creationists
also want to seek scientific evidence, I see no reason to try to stop them,
to belittle them, to doubt their motives or sincerity--or to accuse them of
deliberate fraud. (I can't believe legitimate scientists would make such an
accusation!)
None of these questions will be decided by me; I am not a scientist.
However, I can't resist opposition to what I see as a climate where any
skepticism of the orthodox dogma, any interest in alternative explanations,
is declared to be "an attack upon science". Some people seem to regard this
a noble battle--this fight against "the enemies of Darwinism". They
appear dedicated to stamping out-- eradicating-- become victorious over--
creationism, design, or any other perceived threat to Darwinism. True, most
scientists probably aren't involved, but it is being done in the name of
science. If I were a scientist, I would protest--loudly and indignantly.
Bertvan