Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 13:51:55 EDT

Ted Davis wrote:

>One of the people who attends some of the events we run here on science and
>religion is Phil Skell. Phil is a retired professor of chemistry (he held
>an endowed chair) at Penn State. He's also a member of the NAS, thus a
>truly distinguished scientist.
>
>A couple of years ago, he told me about a large number of conversations he
>had had with scientists, esp biologists, concerning the role that
>evolution--historical thinking in general--played in their actual laboratory
>work. He kept hearing that it was either minimal or non-existent; in other
>words, that evolution was largely or entirely irrelevant to them as
>laboratory scientists. I urged Phil to publish his observations somewhere,
>and this past month they did appear in "The Scientist" (29 August, p. 10),
>under the title, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin?"
>
>I am interested to hear what ASAers think of this provocative little piece.
> I've placed it below.
>
>Ted
>******
>
>
I find his comments as unconvincing now as they were before.
Received on Tue Sep 13 13:53:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 13:53:12 EDT