Chistopher:
>I for one feel these issues deserve more serious attention than Meritt
>gives them.  Taylor's argument, despite some evident flaws, seems
>measured, scholarly and worthy of a hearing.  One need not join the
>supernaturalists to open one's mind to the possibility that Darwin's
>model is but part of the story.  We know that Newton's grand model, the
>very prototype of explanatory science, came to be eclipsed -- not
>discarded, mind you, but transcended -- by the theory of relativity.
>Could a parallel honor be in store for Darwinism?

Of course it will, given enough time and genius. Of course, Darwinism is
"but part of story". How can it be otherwise?

Yet, the challange to those dissatisfied with natural selection is to offer
up their own theory which is more comprehensive and explanitory.

If any of your dissenters sketch out such a paradigm, please let me know.
It seems quite easy to say of any theory, "hey, it doesn't explain x, y,
and z to my satisfaction" and much harder to say, "here is my new theory
which explains a-z more elegantly, more completely, than the old theory".

Darwin's ideas have been chipped at for decades. The chippers have their
role to play, but until there is a serious challange to natural selection
as the main mechanism of evolutionary change, it seems it would be a matter
of trees instead of forests--and also a matter for another mailing list,
unless it could be related to raw foods somehow.

Cheers,
Kirt