Scientific Censorship and Evolution
steve at firthcom.demon.co.uk
Thu Mar 30 12:26:58 EST 1995
In article <275 at milton.win-uk.net>, Richard Milton writes:
> Scientific Censorship and Evolution
It is strange that you should cite Richard Dawkins as someone who is
prepared to silence rational debate, I think you will find that in real
life he is in fact a champion of theories which overturn established
ideas *if* those theories can be shown to have some merit.
As a relative ignoramus on the subject of evolution, I must say that
even I saw strange flaws in your argument. You seem to take individual
cases where mistakes were made, and declare that this invalidates all
evidence in favour of a theory of evolution. I would suggest with some
humility that you may care to read Stephen Jay Gould's "Wonderful Life"
which gives a thrilling history of a series of such mistakes mostly even
more fundamental than those you describe here.
Yet the fact is that such mistaken observations are inevitable,
scientists are after all, only human, and subject to the same problems
as the rest of us. A palaeontologist working with distorted and
incomplete samples may draw the wrong conclusions and be corrected by
workers whose eyesight is keener, or who may have access to a wider
libray of samples. Yet the fact that one observer made incorrect
conclusions does not invalidate evolution as a process, just as an
incorrect determination of the speed of light does not bring the whole
of physics crashing to a halt.
I think if your observations lead you to conclude that evolution is a
myth, you would be better served by publishing a reasoned analysis,
rather than a hysterical attack upon the scientific establishment.
People in general tend to switch off and not absorb the message if it
appears to be little more than a wounded, one-sided, diatribe (and dull
Stephen Firth Matthew: 27, 5
steve at firthcom.demon.co.uk Judges: 7, 17
More information about the Bioforum