The idea that the Prof. Chen's interpretation of the Chengjiang fossils is
'independent' of Behe's group may be fanciful. This was just sent to me by
an acquaintance; I have ordered the full article.. It discusses the
activities of the Discovery Institute which may be funding Chen. So, how
independent is this? (see the last sentence of the second paragraph). If
true, the problem becomes one of whether Chen would bite the hand that feeds
him or not.
From Hughes, Nigel
The Rocky Road to Mendel's Play
in Evolution and Development, vol 2(2), pp 63-66
...The most curious aspect of the meeting, and the most embarrassing for
Western scientists (particularly those form the United States), was the
presence of individuals supported by the Discovery Institute - a
Seattle-based foundation that proclaims intelligent design as a scientific
explanation for biological diversity. The involvement of te Institute came
as a surprise to the more conventional attendees, especially when it became
obvious that the Institute had played a key role in the organization of the
conference, unbeknownst to the scientific community. Several talks were
presented along this theme, the main thesis of which seemed to be the old
Pallian arguments wrapped in a variety of molecular guises. 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.
How does one deal with such situations? Those speaking were accompanied by
a coterie of supporters, including a "cosmic reporter" and one-by-one
scientists attending courteously answered their questions. Many of us,
myself included, reluctantly agree to be interviewed on tape. As guests in
China a major public blow-up was to be avoided, but looking back I wish I
had been more aggressive. We are all used to arguing science, but we are
not used to telling people that we suspect their motives. Perhaps we have
to become so, because the extent, if any, to which Chinese colleagues had
been made aware of the controversial nature of the Discovery Institute, and
its political agenda within the United States, remained unclear. What was
clear is that the Discovery Institute is actively encouraging Chinese
scientists, by means of funding, to promote a view of the Chengjiang fauna
to which they are sympathetic.
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.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 06:37:53 EDT