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

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 22:55:52 EDT

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:24:20 -0400 "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
writes:
> 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 think I have a parallel demonstration that Einstein's special theory of
relativity is not relevant to physics. None of the physicists involved in
sending objects into orbit bring the (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 correction factor
into their computations. The mere fact that escape velocity is about
0.0015 % of c has nothing to do with it. Since the special theory is
irrelevant, the more difficult general theory surely counts for even
less. Of course the academic eggheads will protest my proof, but they'll
also defend cosmology and quantum physics.
Dave
Received on Tue Sep 13 23:00:52 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 23:00:52 EDT