lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/22/84)
[Ready to make a mad dash out the door for vacation]
In the course of my research, I discovered _Darwin Retried_ by [quoting
from the back flap] "Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer, [who] has
made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years; he
belongs to that class of critic which is often the most telling and
revealing, the professional in another field, who brings a different
discipline to his study.... Among his previous writings is an article on
Darwinism published in _The Yale Law Review_ in 1967, which led to this book."
Macbeth is by no means sympathetic to creationism, yet he finds evolution
seriously wanting. [quoting from front flap] "In short, incisive,
frequently witty chapters, DARWIN RETRIED exposes gaps in the evidence
and errors in the reasoning behind Darwinism. It suggests that a fresh
start is in order, and, in the present state of affairs, no theory at
all may be preferable to the existing one. It is not to be expected that
professional Darwinists will immediately welcome this book...."
I am about 1/3 through this book. Macbeth is making a very strong claim
about evolution as a religion. But he is definitely not a creationist.
So I re-raise an earlier point: is evolution held onto because of the
evidence, or rather as Watson (1929) and Ridley(1980's) stated, because
evolutionists must have *something*, and there is nothing better?
BTW, I have printed off several of the recent articles, and will be
looking them over during the weekend (i.e., probably by the time you
read this).
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab
You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.