November 2005


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:30:02 +1300
text/plain (44 lines)
>  Nancy Davies asked:
>Has anyone other than me noticed that the discussion
>of Darwin, Creationism, and Intelligent Design is
>largely an American phenomenon?

	The 3 are not identical.  I think the differences are rather important.
	Discussion of Darwinism has never let up, as there have 
always been philosophers and even scientists who realise evolution is 
not nearly explained by mere physical processes (random mutations 
followed by natural selection narrowing the variance among the 
mutants).  Top biologists have regularly pointed out there's more to 
explaining evolution.  For instance, Sir A Hardy  -  zoology prof 
Oxon  -  'The Living Stream' (Collins 1965).
	Creationism arose in the USA, less than a century ago, and 
doubtless has its main following among fundamentalists there.  But it 
is also an active fanatical commercial phenomenon in Australasia  - 
mainly thru 'Answers In Genesis'.  I can assure you this burden is 
not confined to the USA.
	IDT on the other hand is an almost entirely USA phenomenon. 
The only rationalisation I've found for this is that it's intended to 
get around the past half-century of illogical rulings from the USA 
supeme court pretending that to discuss religion in schools is 
tantamount to establishment of a particular religion i.e. giving it 
legal privileges over others.


>  Due to the USA's
>omnidominance over the news media, the Pope had to go
>on record to say it's not a worthwhile discussion,
>evolution happened, case closed.  I guess everybody but
>us concurs.
>The USA is the most relgious fundamentalist nation of
>the Western World.  I don't see anybody in other
>countries much concerned with our (non)scientific
>debates, from which I conclude that the issue has
>nothing to do with Darwin or science and everything to
>do with social control and the exercise of power.

	The scientific objections to neoDarwinism as a purported 
thorough explanation of evolution are widely held and by no means 
confined to the USA.