Cobra_snake writes:
First of all, this statement constitutes a logical fallacy, that is, trying to discredit information by it's source. Secondly, I don't see how a statement that you wish to "destroy evolution" is an indicator of a lack of moral integrity. Perhaps you could inform me?
I agree with you. The desire to obtain an advanced degree as a means of disproving evolution does not appear to me to have any bearing on a person's moral composition.
However, it does say something about Well's scientific detachment, since he had already made up his mind before beginning his investigation. Lack of scientific detachment doesn't automatically mean that someone's ideas are wrong, as is often said about Wells' ideas, but the history of science clearly indicates that the most successful scientists possess sufficient objectivity to simply follow the evidence where it leads, independent of their preconceived notions. It may be why older scientists are usually far less productive than their younger colleages, why most scientists make their contributions before age 40 - too many preconceived notions.
Examining your link, in it Wells explains that while he was already a supporter of ID when he entered graduate school, he also accepted the Darwinian idea of common descent. He relates how his studies revealed to him the insufficiency of the evidence supporting the theory of common descent.
In a strict scientific sense he's wrong about this insufficiency, since science only considers the natural world. But Wells universe includes the supernatural, and if supernatural intervention must be considered as one of the forces of nature, then given the complexities of common descent, supernatural intervention should be placed right near the top of the list of possibilities to consider.
Unfortunately for Wells, there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural. Hence his ideas are unscientific.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
