Letters in The Scientist re uselessness of Darwinism, plus NAS member Phil Skell's reply
National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell, who is sympathetic to the ID folk (I ran into him at the Smithsonian in June, at the showing of Privileged Planet ) published a commentary in The Scientist, arguing that Darwinism, as currently preached, is generally useless. Well, that set the cat among the pigeons, with a gargantuan roar of angry letters in response. Skell has now replied to the letters, remarking, among other things,
It is noteworthy that not one of these critics has detailed an example
where Darwin's Grand Paradigm Theory guided researchers to their goals. In fact, most innovations are not guided by grand paradigms, but by far more modest, testable hypotheses. Recognizing this, neither medical schools nor pharmaceutical firms maintain divisions of evolutionary science. The fabulous advances in experimental biology over the past century have had a core dependence on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not by intensive immersion in historical biology and Darwin's theory, which attempted to historicize the meager documentation.
Yes, exactly. People who have to spend their own money, not the taxpayers' money, invest in the things that are really useful. For all the frantic claims by the Darwin lobby, Darwin's theory is not in fact one of them - unless you are seeking to use the school or museum system to promote a materialistic philosophy, as Darwinist Michael Ruse has made clear is going on.