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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 17:14:28 EDT

Ukrainian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." For practicing physicists, this would mean that, "Nothing in physics makes sense except in the light of the Big Bang," which is nonsense since physics, like biology, is an experimental not a historical science.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Pim van Meurs
Sent: Tue 9/13/2005 1:51 PM
To: Ted Davis
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

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 17:16:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 17:16:17 EDT