Re: Stereotypes and reputations

>> But there is no real scientific controversy about evolution itself.
>George's point here is shocking to most evangelicals to the point of
>being unbelievable. I suspect that many of us on the list here would
>take issue with it.
>I happen to agree with him.

As Moorad pointed out, it is important to define what is meant here,
especially given all the related confusion.

There is no real scientific controversy about the assertion that
organisms change through time, reflectiong the results of mutation
acted on by selection, neutral drift, catastrophes, etc.

There is no real scientific controversy that all known organisms are
descended from a common ancestor by such processes. Details of the
origination of life are more contentious and more speculative, but some
evidence exists of evolution from something simpler than any living
organism, and organic chemistry gives ideas about the formation of
basic biological molecules.

Given a lack of omniscience, it is impossible to rule out the
possibility of some intervention-style event(s) in this process, but
there is no positive evidence known for such, and the data of
paleontology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, etc. suggest that
such events are rare, if they do occur.

There is controversy about the details of mechanisms, relative
importance of different influences, etc.

There is a lot that is unknown, much less unexplained. However, no
barriers are known where evolutionary models clearly stop working.

The scientific evidence does not tell us anything about whether God is
involved or to what degree.

----------------------------------------
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487
"James gave the huffle of a snail in
danger But no one heard him at all" A.
A. Milne
Received on Fri Jul 29 14:17:19 2005