On the debate between neo-darwinists and their opponents, Isaac Asimove has this to say:
"To serious students of science, it would seem that a scientist must win such a debate. After all, on the side of the scientist are vast
numbers of all kinds of observations, to say nothing of careful argument and unassailable logic. On the side of the creationist there
is, from the scientific point of view, exactly nothing."
(Asimov I., "The Roving Mind," , Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1987, reprint, p.29)
First of all, "serious students of science" can come from all walks of life. "A scientist" can be either an evolutionist, a creationist, an agnostic, etc. Asimov's implication is that the scientist or serious student of science will naturally be an evolutionist, while a creationist will be a non-scientist or "not-very-serious" student of science. Here we see Asimov employing rhetoric to try and persuade his audience of the sound scientific basis for belief in neo-
darwinism. Although it is quite a powerful rhetorical device, its truth value is zero. In other words, it is extremely deceptive.
Although it is true that this debate can be viewed as science versus non-science, it is begging the question to assume that neo-darwinism is science. On the contrary, I remain convinced that neo-darwinism is non-science - but I would rather discuss that proposition in the empirical sense and the rational sense, than employ the rhetorical sense, as Asimov has done.
Secondly, the rhetorical device employed by Asimov creates a fascinating contradiction with the ugly fact of the matter:
"And yet, somehow, in such debates, the creationist often appears to have it all his own way, while the scientist is reduced to an ineffective defense."
The simple explanation for this ugly fact is that there is NOT a sound scientific basis for belief in neo-darwinism. This is never shown more clearly than when an evolutionist attempts to explain complexity, information and design. I sincerely hope that at least one evolutionist in this forum will challenge that explanation and provide an explanation of complexity, information and design.
PS. This contribution is a slightly modified version of a message I posted to the CreationEvolutionDesign Yahoo group. I feel it's central point: "Is there a scientific basis for neo-darwinism?" applies to this forum too.
[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Moderator ]