Scientific Censorship and Evolution

Scott9609 scott9609 at aol.com
Thu Mar 30 01:21:46 EST 1995


Dear Sir:

As a former creationist, I am sympathetic to folks who are made
uncomfortable by the conclusions of the modern synthetic form of
Darwinism.

I am also sympathetic to Popper's criticism of evolution and of scientific
method in general; there are also philosophical difficulties with cursory
presentations of evolutionary science.  As Macbeth ("Darwin Retried") has
shown, evolutionary theory's explanatory power is weakened when it relies
upon tautological explanations.  And it is certainly true that it is easy
to criticize a body of knowledge which is in itself uncertain on many
points...which is (dare I say it?) in itself evolutionary.

Having said that, however, I find the contents of the article to be a poor
excuse for science.  I believe that the "scientific objections" that it
purports to raise are straw men for an alternative explanatory principle
and that the article misrepresents the views of Popper, Monod and Simpson
by extension.

I stand prepared to argue the particulars of this article chapter and
verse if you are so inclined.  I encourage you to actually read the
authors you have cited in depth before doing so, however.  

Sincerely....Scott Hatfield (kennesaw at ccfnet.com)


I acknowledge that a cursory examination of certain scientific data might
lend credence to the claims that "neo-Darwinism" is incorrect in its
particulars.  However, in my opinion this submission is essentially "old
hat" criticism in the mode of "Darwin Retried" (Macbeth) and is neither . 
The intentions are good and not necessarily strongly linked with any
religious objective, but in 



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list