Paul A.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Cavanaugh <Michaelcav@AOL.COM>
To: <reiterations@META-LIST.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 7:53 AM
Subject: [reiterations] Reply to Glenn
> Dear Glenn,
>
> Two things at the very end of your posting will help to focus my thoughts
in
> response to yours. One is those two letters "M.D.," which tells me that
you
> respect evidence (in fact I LOVE the way the medical profession is
spiffing
> up its image as we speak, by starting to call its discipline
"evidence-based
> medicine"). The second is your closing "Sincerely as a truth seeker."
> Although I suspect that Lynne's comment dovetails perfectly with the first
> observation (the M.D. part), and although I agree with her that there is
> overwhelming evidence for evolution, it seems to me that this second
> observation (the "truth seeker" part) might be more significant. As a
very
> gross attempt to read between the lines, I suspect that, like me, you were
> raised in a tradition that could not see the harmony that Lynne and others
on
> this list now see between science (and especially evolution) and religion.
I
> still consider myself a true seeker in many areas of my life, but this
> business of evolution is one where I claimed the promise that "if you seek
> you will find" by spending 15 years in a focused search on the issue, and
at
> this point I am very confident that evolution is indeed true, though I
could
> always be persuaded by evidence weighty enough to challenge the huge
amount
> that Lynne points to.
>
> My suggestion for beginning a true search is less sophisticated than what
> Lynne might suggest. She might suggest that you read a significant
portion
> of the evidence for evolution (and of course your medical background makes
> even the technical evidence quite accessible to you). My suggestion is
> rather to read the most basic evolution document of all, namely Darwin's
"The
> Origin of Species." Most bookstores still carry it, it is a quick and
easy
> read, and even those who disagree with Darwin should read it as part of
> their overall education. What is fascinating is the way he unfolds the
> evidence. Yes, there have been many additions and even some subtractions
to
> his basic approach, but it is just amazing how well he saw things,
primarily
> because of his focus on evidence and "truth seeking." It was one of those
> cases where many smart people said "Oh, no, why didn't I think of that?
It
> is so obvious once you put the evidence together." I don't remember
offhand
> what all the chapters are, but they include treatments of embryology,
> fossils, and geography, to name three. Each of the other chapters set out
> the evidence from yet another angle. The pages just drip with the careful
> and gentle personality of the man. I do not worship him, but it is
> impossible not to be very impressed with what he did. And it is relevant
to
> both evidence and to truth seeking, in my opinion.
>
> If you have already read Darwin, then my second suggestion may sound
strange.
> It is to read two or three of the creationist books. In my own case, I
> found them almost as convincing FOR evolution as I found Darwin and more
> recent summaries of the evidence for evolution. That is because their use
of
> evidence is so incompetent (or perhaps so competent as to be fraudulent,
in
> some cases). But I am confident that someone who deals daily with
evidence,
> as you and I do, will be persuaded by their shoddy use of it to see all
the
> clearer that evolution is true.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Cavanaugh
> Attorney and author of "Biotheology: A New Synthesis of Science and
Religion"
> (University Press of America, 1996)
>