Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.physics,net.religion Subject: Re: Nay to net.origins Message-ID: <1268@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Dec-83 22:18:35 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.1268 Posted: Mon Dec 19 22:18:35 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Dec-83 01:55:38 EST References: <2953@utcsrgv.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 102 [From Don Chan:] I have mixed feelings towards net.origins. While I'm a firm believer in free intellectual discussion, I get the feeling that net.origins would quickly degenerate into tirades on theories of biology by NONBIOLOGISTS. In other words, a bunch of non-experts sounding off on topics they know little about (sorta like net.politics :-) Are you saying that only experts on a certain subject should be allowed to discuss that subject on a semi-public forum like USENET? The original suggestion by Paul Dubuc struck me as a thinly veiled attempt to introduce "scientific" creationism on the net. His true colors seem to be revealed by the passage: The firm logical and empirical support for much of what is presented as "established fact" in science education is crumbling--not necessarily at the hands of creationists. Darwinism is, for all practical purposes, dead and neo-Darwinism seems to be following it. I would like to know what is going to be replacing them since that does not seem to be common knowledge. I refer to books like Norman Macbeth's "Darwin Retried", ... and "The Neck of the Giraffe" by Francis Hitching. For those who want the context of the above quote, it was contained in my response to an article "net.origins?" in the net.physics newsgroup. I am not trying to "introduce" scientific creationism on the net. That has already been done, to some extent, in net.religion. I'm sure you and others would like to keep it there, but my intent is to remove it from the religious context. I have already given my reasons for this in previous articles. But, instead of answering them, it seems you would rather suspect my motives of being insincere and my reasoning a "veil" to hide my "true colors". The net is not the place to teach biology. Who's going to teach? It's obvious where Paul's learned his though, judging from his remarks about Darwinism. Even Stephen Jay Gould wouldn't go that far, and he's a real researcher in the field! I read Hitching's book, expecting an overview of the current controversy in biology on the mechanism of evolution. What I got was an fairly ignorant attack on straw men. Gould wouldn't go that far? Hitching quotes him as saying the following: "I well remember how the synthetic theory [neo-Darwinism] beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it--since beguiling is often forever--but if [Ernst] Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as test-book orthodoxy." ["Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?", *Palaeobiology*, 6, 1 (1980), pp. 119-30] Gould is definitely reluctant to admit this sort of thing to the general public, however. As Macbeth points out in his interview with "Towards", Gould assures the the public in "Natural History" that everything is fine and that there is no problem with thinking that Darwin is the greatest man that ever lived. Macbeth says that this kind of thing was the whole point of his book "Darwin Retried". I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion of Hitchings book, but since you don't seem to be an expert in biology and have given me no reasoning to substantiate your claim, I hope you will forgive me if I don't believe you just because you say so. I would rather hope to read a critique of the book written by a biologist. But where am I going to read it on the net? (I assume you're also against net.biology, since you say that the net isn't the place to "teach" biology.) I don't suppose you would think that Hitching's criticism of creationists was also a "fairly ignorant attack on straw men". He was probably "right on" there, huh? Forming your view of biological theories from mass-market books written by non-professionals is not unlike gleaning knowledge on programming language design from "101 BASIC programs for your PET" or learning about aerospace engineering from "Flying Saucers have Landed". I suppose I should only let the Darwinists form my opinion as to the viability of Darwinism? I agree with your above statement, but what is your definition of a professional, anyway? In your criticism of "mass market books written by non-professionals" you seem to be belittling the source of argument rather than the argument itself. I assume we should not take the books you mention above seriously because of their content, not because of the fact they are available on the mass market or written by non-professionals. So explain to me your objections to the content of the books. Macbeth (and probably Hitching) is considered a member of the scientific community in any case. The same goes for discussing evolution (lets call a spade a spade-- that's what'll be discussed in net.origins) on the net. I'm sure of it. But I think the name net.origins is better than net.evolution. I don't see any reason to limit the discussion to evolution *per se*. Paul Dubuc