Re: transitional fossils

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Dec 05 2005 - 10:37:28 EST

Don Winterstein wrote:

> "That evolution has withstood time is
> merely an indication of how powerful an explanation it really is."
>
> How about the fact that for nearly all scientists (those who insist
> on solely natural mechanisms) it's the only game in town? Even if the
> theory were quite weak (which in several respects it is not), you'd do
> everything in your power to support it if you had no alternative but
> the supernatural, the possibility of which you as scientist cannot or
> will not or should not ( ? ) entertain. So there's definitely a
> strong bias in play. Under the circumstances, what conceivable
> alternative could persuade scientists to abandon it?
>
> Don
>

Given that the theory is quite strong and alternatives are fully
lacking, I'd say none. The supernatural is never a good alternative
scientifically speaking.

To call this a bias seems somewhat problematic though. Should scientists
consider magic as an explanation as well? After all, it seems to me that
scientists are biased against the possibility of wizzardry. And don't
even get me started on the power of Voodoo.
Received on Mon Dec 5 10:37:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 05 2005 - 10:37:59 EST