Re: Report: Francis Collins presentation

Loise:

"And, though I would nt presume to speak for Dr. Collins, my best guess if that he would say that there are actually not that many problems with evolution as a theory (or unifying principle) and that virtually no one is challenging it on a pure scientific basis. He described evidence in support of evolution as "rock solid" and made it clear that it is not something at the fringes of science. A serious challenge to evolution would require the overturning of major principles in a variety of scientific fields."

It is this sort of dogmatic overstatement that is troubling. Rock solid? No one is challenging on a scientific basis? A challenge would require overturning major scientific principles? The only major principles that would be overturned are those within evolutionary theory. Folks, the scientific evidence simply does not lend itself to this kind of certainty.

--George

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Freeman, Louise Margaret
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:23 AM
  Subject: Re: Report: Francis Collins presentation

    I'm unclear what "truncated" means in this context. Also, it appears from your report that Collins avoided the many problems with evolution. Think of someone arguing for geocentrism without mentioning retrograde motion.

    --George
     To the best of my recollection, "truncated" meant "broken off" and the point was that the genes were broken at the exact letter.

    And, though I would nt presume to speak for Dr. Collins, my best guess if that he would say that there are actually not that many problems with evolution as a theory (or unifying principle) and that virtually no one is challenging it on a pure scientific basis. He described evidence in support of evolution as "rock solid" and made it clear that it is not something at the fringes of science. A serious challenge to evolution would require the overturning of major principles in a variety of scientific fields.
Received on Tue Oct 25 17:15:17 2005