Keith:

I'd be interested in your comments on the following article:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200803.htm#20080307a

My comments are that law of natural selection is in no more danger than the law of gravity. The description of this meeting of all of 16 supposed esteemed scientists as the "Woodstock of Evolution" and "major skirmish" about whether evolution really happens is an absurd exaggeration.

I think the article misleadingly quotes this Jerry Fodor in a manner that suggests he is a scientist, and in particular a biologist, when he is, in fact, a freakin philosopher and isn't even mainstream there either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Fodor

A review of the supposed "rock stars" of biology finds they are more like a garage band.

John Beatty: A Phd in philosophy whose highest education in biology is at the Batchelor's level. It's not like he's an Ivy League scholar at that. His batchelors was from Tulane and his graduate education in Philosophy was from Indiana University.

Sergey Gavrilets isn't a biologist at all, he's a physicist and mathmatician who graduated from the University of Moscow. At least a lot of his math work has been on statistical studies related to biology and evolution. He teaches at the University of Tennessee. He has good academic credentials, but as far as being a "rock star" in the field, no way.

David Sloan Wilson is a biologist, has a PhD in it and seems reasonable respected in the field. Thing is, he is also a strong believer in evolution.

And so on.

The article is monumental effort to create a mountain out of molehill.


The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Dang, you could at least get a little emotional about it.

Keith, do you have any desire to have a meaningful discussion, or not really? The reason I ask is that your response gives the impression that you do not. You appear to be attempting to cut off any discussion. Just let me know.

There was nothing "emotional" about it. You asked for my comments and there they are. Honestly, don't you think it is over the top hyberbole to describe a mere 16 people, half of whom seem to be philosophers as a "Woodstock" of "rock band" level evolutionary scientists? I mean, really?

I obviously cared enough about a meaningful discussion to check some of these guys out. I picked four names to look up, the first being the Jerry Fodor guy who is quoted in the article in a deceptive manner that suggests he's one of those leading evolutionary scientists. He's not even close, being a fairly off beat philosopher.

The next three names I checked out were just the first three on the list of the list of the "Altenberg 16." Those three included another philosopher and a Russian mathematician. The third was a legit evolutionary scientist and while I don't know if I would describe him as a "rock star" in the field he's has credentials, but the thing is, he's also a strong supporter of evolutionary theory.

Overall the article continues a bogus effort to portray the theory of evolution as seriously questioned by scientists claiming this is a "major skirmish" in the "Darwin Camp." This is not such major skirmish, and the Fodor character was never in the "Darwin Camp" having long been on the record as an anti-evolutionist. The article pumps up a staged and orchestrated event to amplify it into something that it is not.

Now that's my comments. They are serious comments and discuss the merits of the issue.



The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.