RAZD writes:
"I am always a little perplexed at why creationists seem to need to discredit Darwin as if that would make evolution go away."
And I am always perplexed by people who seem to be writing at a tangent.
To answer the questions I think you're asking:
1. I have no idea why you would imagine that all "creationists" (a hopelessly vague generalisation) have common ideas and motives at the back of their actions. As far as I can tell, people tend to be individuals and have individual motives and ideas, regardless of their personal beliefs.
2. Why did I create my site? Well, if you'd bothered to read it I guess you'd know by now. The bottom line, as I state quite clearly, is NOT to discredit Darwin as such, but to clarify and document the true level of his scientific knowledge and skill.
3. You write:
"There were many things that Darwin said in his books that have been invalidated since, where the science has moved on. That is what science does after all..."
as though this were a self-evident, universally agreed fact.
Well, sorry, you are incorrect in your assumption. Even college/university professors in the US (let alone teachers) are being persecuted on this score - NOT because they don't agree with evolution (because the ones who have written to me have all been (according to them) staunch believers in evolution), but because they dare to dispute the ongoing primacy of Darwin's work.
4. "You seem to be particularly caught up in the issue of discrediting Darwin"
Well, I appreciate that is apparently what you think you read, though I have to say the nature of your questions **suggests** that you didn't read very much. Either way, that isn't what I was trying to do.
If Darwin has been appreciated for what he actually did, and evolutionists had all "moved on" as you suggest, Eiseley wouldn't have written his book and hence my site wouldn't exist.
In fact this is most definitely NOT what has happened, otherwise why on earth do you suppose that one of the most aggressive groups of pro-evolution academics refer to themselves as Neo-Darwinists, and why are the MOST vociferous members of the group referred to by other (pro-evolution) academics as Ultra-Neo-Darwinists?
The fact is, as I explain on my site, that evolutionary studies are no longer benefitting from Darwin and his ideas, on the contrary, the whole field seems bogged down in ridiculous disputes over Darwinian orthodoxy.
5. "what would be accomplished about the science of evolution IF it was shown that Darwin cribbed all his notes from other sources and is only responsible for putting it all together in one piece?"
Again, answered on my site, but since you didn't read that - it would bring Darwin and his work into perspective and HOPEFULLY evolutionists would at last move on for real, NOT just in theory.
BTW, "evolution" is NOT a science, though **some** aspects of what is usually included under the "evolution" banner can certainly be investigated by the use of various branches of the sciences.
Evolution is not a science for one very simple reason - the only universally agreed definition of "evolution" is:
Evolution = Change
And that's it! Once you go beyond that simple definition things start to get fuzzy.
So is "change" a "science" - or is it a huge subject, parts of which can be investigated using scientific "instruments"?
FWIW, NLP is very much about understanding and implementing psychological "change", but I still wouldn't try to claim it was therefore "scientific".
I hope this answers your questions adequately. If not I respectfully suggest that you try reading the whole thing without prejudging the nature of what you are reading.
Be well
Andrew Bradbury
™ Version 4.2
