Well, isn't that something?
That is answered here:
2 for 2 so far. You guys should really get into this website.
And how much of your agreement with what that website says is based on the fact that you already agree with it? I think we've all figured out by now that the only things you're skeptical of are the things you don't agree with. Frankly, it's laughably easy to be skeptical of such things, because the human mind is wired that way. So the real challenge to a skeptic is whether they can be skeptical of things which they're inclined to agree with. And frankly, you are anything but, based on everything I've observed of your behavior on this website. You blindly accept what seems obvious to you, and are only skeptical of things when they conflict with what you already think is true or simply that you really want to be true.
I read the whole paper you linked above, and I was decidedly unimpressed with it. For one thing, biology is only one of the natural sciences, yet Bergman doesn't seem to understand that when he states that "Darwinism is often totally ignored in most science classes". Of course it is, because evolution has no real impact on chemistry, or physics, or astronomy, or geology, or most of the natural sciences. The only branch of science that it impacts is biology. Even in biology, there are a lot of situations where it isn't especially important to focus on evolutionary theory - because while evolutionary theory underlies them, the focus is on other parts of the science. I liken it to someone studying fruits or leaves on a tree, even though without the roots, neither fruits nor leaves would have grown.
Frankly, the whole paper seems to be based on an misapprehension of Dobzhansky's statement. In essence, Bergman assumes that unless evolution is necessary to understand biology, then Dobzhansky's statement about it being the cornerstone of biology is false. However, a person does not have to understand evolution or even have heard of it to gain some understanding of the science of biology, just as a person doesn't have to know that trees have roots to understand that you can pick fruits from them. But if that person wants to understand why trees produce fruit, then knowing about roots is essential, just as a person who wants to understand how biology on this planet developed needs to know about evolutionary theory.
Bergman would like his readers to believe that 'Darwinists' simply say things about how important evolutionary theory is to the public as a kind of propaganda, but don't actually believe that themselves. Yet this is simply more faulty assumptions on his part. As I stated above, he's inflating Dobzhansky's statements about the importance of evolution to biology into meaning the importance of evolution to natural science
and then using that to paint a false picture of 'divisions' between scientists. For example, he wrote of a conference at Philadelphia's Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology where unnamed mathematicians made a challenge about evolutionary theory and, ultimately, the mathematicians and biologists agreed to disagree. His purpose was to show that there is division between 'Darwinists', yet how can mathematicians - especially mathematicians who presumably, at least according to Bergman, didn't agree with evolutionary theory in the first place - be described as Darwinists with a straight face?
This sort of fallacious logic pervades the entirety of Bergman's essay. In the end, he concluded that evolution was not really necessary for biology, and in fact was largely unnecessary, a sort of biological 'history' which may or may not be accurate. Yet what he actually showed was his agenda
- to drum up a rationale to exclude 'Darwinism' from science and to make it seem as if 'Darwinism' was a largely unsupported belief, not even supported by most scientists except in what they said to the general public. Notably, he gave no examples of prominent biologists, or indeed, any biologists, who disagreed, and invariably had to generalize into natural sciences as a whole to create the appearance of disagreement regarding a cornerstone of biology.
He is, of course, correct in saying that biochemistry is necessary for biology. He would also be correct if he said that physics was necessary for biology. Yet neither of those fields really do anything to explain biology, except in a Tinkertoy or Lego sense - they serve as the building blocks for biological organisms, but aside from creating constraints within biology, they don't do a thing to explain why biology took the particular course that it did here on Earth. And that is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that he wrote his essay to try to avoid recognizing - that without evolution, we have no explanation for how life developed through it's several billion year history here on Earth. That's why evolution is a cornerstone if biology, that's why nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, and Bergman's attempts to pretend otherwise won't change that.