RE: paleonet ID and function discussion: Didactical hint

[Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Dr. Lisa E. Park wrote:

> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:54:09 -0400
> From: Dr. Lisa E. Park <lepark@uakron.edu>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: paleonet ID and function discussion
>
> You might also want to check out Ken Miller's refutation of the irreducible
> complexity.  He has eloquently picked apart the eye and mousetrap arguments

Dear all,

this ID discussion appears to have an "outreach" aspect.

Sometimes, also on this list, ID people are quoted saying that
"Darwin is/was incorrect with....".

I recommend considering to respond in such situations:

Nobody judges the ability of air-transport by the plane of the Wright
brothers around 1901, but by considering the 747-400, A380 or AN255.

In science we have progress as well:

Considering Prof. Mayr or Gould makes sense.

Darwin was the pioneer. Advancement was observed.

Possibly this side: The recommendation to consider ongoing advancement
before criticism is raised might be used by people who have to
handle such questions.

Even above didactical comparison (747 vs. Orville Wright) can be
applied. And the sentence: "Yes, we are far away from Darwin. Don t
critisize old issues. Geology too had more than 100 years progress."

For Geology: Compare the original works of Alfred Wegener with the
current knowledge on plate tectonics. Initial concepts have been
modified considerably. The line (see evolution) that continents drift
is a commonplace.

Best regards

Peter

**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster

Tel.: +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
Fax:  +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************