Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".


Ray Martinez wrote:

(snip)

Dana and others have replied to your comments about what Lewontin said
34 years ago. But even if you are right in this case - that Lewontin
truly was an anti-evolutionist 34 years ago - evolution stands on its
own today with or without that (though one still has to wonder why you
had to go that far back to get the quote).

Since what one person thought way back when has no bearing on whether
your upcoming theory is supported or not, I want to take this
opportunity to compliment you on what - for now at least - seems like a
refreshing change from current "big tent" antics. You said:

Besides, Behe believes apes morphed into men, these types are very well
known to lie - obviously.

(snip)

If you are truly unconstrained by the need to placate other
anti-evolutionists, I have some recommendations for your paper.

If it truly has something original, it too will stand on its own, and
generate new lines of research. As critics said for Meyer's paper, if
it is for real, it will be a beginning, not the "last word." Sadly,
Meyer's paper was nothing but a rehash of old incredulity arguments. It
neither refuted evolution, gave evidence of a designer, nor proposed
any testable alternative hypothesis. So, as expected, after 2 years,
Meyer himself has shown that it was not a beginning, but another (dead)
end.

If your paper claims what you hint it does - provide a theory for an
old-earth, independent abiogenesis account that happens to coincide
with one of the literal interpretations of Genesis, these
recommendations will help you immensely:

1. If you haven't already, submit it to a major scientific publication.
If Meyer can get past peer review, so can you.

2. Just in case there are some anti-Bible types who might reject your
paper for the wrong reasons, just leave out all references to the
Bible, or to a "designer." If the data point that way, thousands of
theistic evolutionists will advertise your paper for you, and add all
the extra-scientific commentary you are itching to include.

3. Leave out all problems with evolution. Right or wrong, it's a red
flag, especially after the Meyer debacle, that could also generate an
unfair review. If you have a new theory, it will stand on its own,
without any reference to "holes" in evolution. *After* the paper is
published, you can add how your theory falsified "macroevolution." But
do yourself a favor - read up on Theobald. His "potential" falsifiers
can only help you.

4. If your paper is truly a beginning, and if you truly have no
allegiance to the big tent, then YEC and the "don't ask, don't tell" ID
strategy will be dead. Admit it. Advertise it. But expect contnuing
misrepresentation from YECs, and don't be surprised if IDers try to
claim credit for your ideas. Since mainstream science will have no
choice but to accept your theory, the irony will be that most of your
enemies will be - creationists!

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast