Non-creationist, non-Darwinist, "third way" theories of evolution.
Post to Congressman Pete Stark re Darwin Day
- Details
- Written by Shaun Johnston Shaun Johnston
- Published: February 19, 2011 February 19, 2011
- Hits: 3145 3145
I write about your proposal to establish Darwin Day. Please allow for the opinion that Darwin does not merit such recognition, on grounds apart from creationism. Evolution had been fully disclosed in 1844 in "Vestiges..." Darwin's main claim to fame is the mechanism he proposed for it, natural selection. But this failed by not accounting for the variation it needed to work on. Genetic mutation does not solve this problem, the great preponderance of harmful over beneficial mutations not being reversable by such an inefficient process as natural selection. Darwin's theory was promoted by others to break the Church of England's grip on tenure at universities and entry to the professions in 19th C England. I urge you to keep science separate from politics and social movements. It would now be embarrassing to have celebrations of Locke for Associationism, Watson for behaviorism or Galton for eugenics. A celebration of Darwin for what is still an unsupported hypothesis could similarly be embarrassing. Darwin should be judged as a scientist, not used by social groups jockeying for public support.
Webmaster
In support of my assumptions, I refer to Julian Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis." He refers to harmful mutations, relative to beneficial mutations, as being in the great majority. That sounds to me more like 100 to one than ten to one. And in an exercise he supplies a value for the efficiency of natural selection of 2 or 3%. I take that to be the ultimate authority re the modern synthesis, I use his assumptions. I think yours are out of line.My apologies for not replying sooner. I seldom get comments, and did not get an email that you'd replied. I'm delighted to get your comment.Webmaster
In support of my assumptions, I refer to Julian Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis." He refers to harmful mutations, relative to beneficial mutations, as being in the great majority. That sounds to me more like 100 to one than ten to one. And in an exercise he supplies a value for the efficiency of natural selection of 2 or 3%. I take that to be the ultimate authority re the modern synthesis, I use his assumptions. I think yours are out of line.My apologies for not replying sooner. I seldom get comments, and did not get an email that you'd replied. I'm delighted to get your comment.No response to press release
September 30 I issued a press release through PRweb saying I had received no response to my letters sent in May to the NAS committee. In the three weeks since I posted the release this page has had around 230 visits but I've received no response. I'm disappointed user rating remains at 1. Is it not worth more than that?No response to press release
September 30 I issued a press release through PRweb saying I had received no response to my letters sent in May to the NAS committee. In the three weeks since I posted the release this page has had around 230 visits but I've received no response. I'm disappointed user rating remains at 1. Is it not worth more than that?No answer from NAS committee
May 3, no answer yet from any of the 14 committee members I sent letters to, except for an acknowledgment of my letter by Gil Omenn.No answer from NAS committee
May 3, no answer yet from any of the 14 committee members I sent letters to, except for an acknowledgment of my letter by Gil Omenn.Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Report
My comments