@wandeljw,
Quote:"It is indeed a stupid poll," Dr. Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist (and On Faith panelist) told me in an email. "Actually I think I'd say a dishonest poll -- because the QUESTION PRESUMES that there is scientific evidence against evolution. Of course, if we have a theory where there is evidence for and against, it would be ridiculous to teach only the evidence in favour.
"It is indeed a stupid poll" is an assertion and "indeed" is un-necessary and a solecism.
"Actually I think I'd say a dishonest poll." That is ridiculous. In writing. What on earth does "actually" mean. And "I think I'd say" is silly. And "dishonest" is an assertion.
He seeks to give the impression that Dr West, who I assume has been educated in an American institution of higher learning, The Discovery Institute and the Zogby organisation are a bunch of conspiratorial, lying, cheating bastards but "actually" he only "thinks" he would say that and then he says it.
The guy can't even write in his native tongue. His tongue is probably exhausted.
There is scientific evidence against evolution by natural selection. There's the problem of drones in insect colonies which can only be explained by socio-biology and if we go into that subject we need to apply it to human societies as well. Then what to teach in schools transcends the narrow dimensions of anti-IDer's banalities and reaches deep into social consequences debates, which are political.
There's also the problem that there are, and have been, more species existing than it is possible to count and choosing a tiny, infinitessimal even, fraction of examples to prove a point is a piece of cake especially when the ones making the point, and some money, are doing the choosing. If one chose all the yellow star shaped Dolly Mixture components and ignored the rest you could seem to prove that all Dolly Mixture components were star shaped and yellow. Or, by organising exams in such a way that children from large houses did better than ones from trailer-trash parks you could seem to prove that the former are superior evolutionary specimens and therefore should become the ruling elite. That's how to end up with a ruling elite with an average IQ of 100. As seems to be the case.
There's also the problem that it is the sperm and the egg which carry the material of inheritance and those are not necessarily subject to environmental changes of the easy to understand type so beloved of our anti-IDers.
A mutation giving a long neck would prosper by being able to reach a food source others couldn't. And thus reproduce more. The idea that the long neck developed
in order to reach this food is saying that acquired characteristics are inheritable. And one might expect such a theory from a well-to-do English gentleman of the Manchester industrial school of thought. Him having inherited superior genes, a sick joke actually, would justify his relations exploiting lower life forms in the factories in order to live a self indulgent life on their backs. Darwin did spend a lot of time in the company of working class pigeon fanciers. "I am hand & glove with all sorts of Fanciers, Spital-field weavers & all sorts of odd specimens of the Human species", he wrote.
I should imagine the prosecution at Dover flattered the good judge in regard to such matters.
The sperm and the egg are separated from the body and are not subject to weather patterns or tectonic movements in any simple way. They constitute a separate lineage. Possibly influenced by astrological events.
And the gaps in the fossil record are explained by the record being "imperfect" which is another way of saying there are gaps in it.
There are scientific questions relating to Darwin's theory. Not all of them suitable for public discussion.
