Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
In fact, at least in physics classes, we spend a lot of time
discussing alternatives to various theories. We talk about the
Aristotelian view versus the Newtonian view. We talk about the wave
theory of light and the particle theory of light. We talk about
Newtonian gravity and Relativistic gravity, and Galilean relativity
and Einstein's relativity. We talk about the caloric theory of heat
and the modern thermodynamic view, and other that I can't think of of
the top of my head. In chemistry classes, I'm sure they talk about
the Phlogiston theory, and many others. In biology class they talk
about different views of evolution--Lamarkian, Darwinian, Lyell's
proposals, and others, including, of course the modern synthesis and
Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium. At least most of these
discussions can be based on evidence for and against on both sides.
So to argue that we are sweeping a controversy under the rug because
we are afraid of it is just not true. Scientifically, there is no
controversy about the idea of descent with modification. Remember,
Darwin entitled his book "The Origin of Species" and not "The Origin
of Life." Contrary to what some opponents of evolution argue,
evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only about how life
evolves. The origin of life is a separate topic within biology, about
which we know very much less than we do about what happened after
life appeared.