Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <90.51fccb5.266907ec@aol.com>:
>
>
> Hi Glenn,
> The big complaint has been that ID doesn't do science. When it
> does do science the outrage is even greater. Note that the
> complaint is not over what the Chinese are doing, or even
> disagreement over their conclusions. It is outrage that they
> are associating with ID scientists.
The word I saw was "embarassment" but if their science is really
bad, what's wrong with being outraged? If the author below is
Prof. Nigel Hughes from UCR, (http://www.trilobyte.ucr.edu/nch/index.html)
he's quite an expert on Cambrian lifeforms and quite qualified
to know if people are exaggerating issues or not. Read his
specific scientific criticism again. What don't you agree with?
[ Hughes, Nigel
The Rocky Road to Mendel's Play
in Evolution and Development, vol 2(2), pp 63-66 ]
> Michael Denton
> spoke on what he saw as a failure of genetics to unveil a universal
> explanation for biological form, Paul Nelson on maternal effect genes, and
> Jonathan Wells on homeotic genes. It takes guts to expose yourself in this
> manner to a generally incredulous audience, but it also places special
> demands if science is your objective. I was depressed to find that my
> rudimentary understanding of molecular biology was sufficient to spot
> egregious errors, candidly dispatched by Eric Davidson. Well's claim that
> aspects of *Hox* gene control, instead of providing yet more evidence for
> homology and common ancestry, actually suggest that all metazoan phyla
> arose independently gives the flavor of what was offered. In doing so he
> effectively denied any defensible meaning in the words such as deuterosome
> or ecdysozoan, well established higher taxa which have been erected on
> characters other than those genes that influence segment identity. A bold
> claim, but one he could not reasonably defend as questioning revealed.
> Denton was dismayed that biotic systems are more complicated than some
> geneticists had expected in the 1960s, but the logical connection between
> this and his belief in immutable natural designs was left unexplained. And
> so it wen ton. The only thing new here was the presence of these arguments
> at a meeting that was ostensibly billed as being scientific.
<snip>
> Several Chinese scientists gave presentations that emphasized the sudden
> appearance of phyla, hinting at the need for a new "top-down" mechanism of
> evolution - music, of course, to creationionist ears. Although the
> Chenjian fauna does forcefully remind us that many body plans were firmly
> established by early in the Cambrian, it does little more than focus
> attention on the interesting things that happened around the
> Precambrian/Cambrian boundary. The "phylogenetic lawn" idea is hardly new
> (recall, for example, Gould's *Wonderful life*), and is clearly an
> inaccurate view. Given the generous way in which scientists at the meeting
> explained this an other matters to those allied with the Discovery
> Institute it is disappointing to find commentaries in the *Wall Street
> Journal* (August 16, 1999) proclaiming that Chinese scientists have new
> evidence that questions the very basis of evolution. Predictably enough,
> the Discovery Institute turns out to be uninterested in scientific rigor,
> and they will do whatever it takes to promote their agenda, including
> taking advantage of Chinese scholars. Creationism is not only a specter
> that haunts rationality in the United States, but it is also willing to
> employ a little cultural imperialism if it furthers the cause.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 16:57:11 EDT