Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2B from Timaeus – to Don Nield

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Sep 28 2008 - 19:16:38 EDT

Timaeus said: *For TEs, Denton's first book should be mandatory reading,
because most TEs are convinced that Darwinism is good science, and the first
book shows that Darwinism is very poor science, even when "science" is
restricted to the narrow view of causation and explanation demanded by
Scott, Ken Miller, Dawkins, etc*.

I respond: Timeaus, could you, or could anyone here, point me to a fair,
current review of Denton's "Theory in Crisis" book? My understanding is
that significant aspects of Denton's criticism in that book have been
debunked. My further understanding is that Phil Johnson's "Darwin on Trial"
is largely a popularization of Denton's "Theory in Crisis," and that much of
Johnson's critique also has been shown to be off the mark on the merits. A
non-expert like myself simply is not capable of making an individual
evaluation on the merits, and I am extremely reluctant to conclude that the
vast majority of working biologists are conspiring to hide the truth.

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> In answer to Don Nield's comments and question:
>
>
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 28 19:16:58 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 28 2008 - 19:16:58 EDT