In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

We have methods for determining good science from bad, or current science from disproven science.

Here we agree and disagree. Utter silence from that side of the aisle when I mentioned the long-discredited ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny nonsense. Good science doesn't look to the hopeful monster.

Where on earth did this come from? Yes, the notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long been discredited. It hasn't been in the textbooks in a good half century. And the hopeful monster notion was never taken seriously in the first place and is not a part of evolutionary theory at all. So what exactly did you expect other than "utter silence"? The two things you mentioned have nothing at all to do with the validity of evolutionary theory or its status as a compelling scientific explanation.

Ed Brayton

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/77 - Release Date: 8/18/05

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

Reply via email to