From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 14:43:35 EST
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:44:54 -0500
"Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
>Ted replies: Rich, I'm not trying to be difficult or to insult you.
> I've
>done my best to explain my point, if you don't see it, then perhaps I
>haven't explained it carefully enough. But I don't know how to be
>clearer.
>Perhaps someone else can help here? I have nothing further to say,
>myself.
Ted,
I guess my concern is that you appear to be describing the racism
of the scientists, which is fair enough, and then placing creationists
as a foil (Wm Jennings Bryan, for example). Is this a complete
picture? Were the creationists of that time in lock-step
progressive and non-racist? What years are you talking about?
If you are in the first quarter of the twentieth century, I
don't see how you can exclude the Klan, for example. The
point being that given a pervasively racist society, people
holding different worldviews may come to the same conclusions
about race but using different rationales. You will have
exceptions, and we all would hope that the exceptions will
eventually become the rule. It could be I misunderstand what
you are trying to say with your book.
I think you this relates as well to your comment about
'social darwinism' being a reason for modern creationist
rejection of evolution. This is a bit curious. I realize
there is that perception, but most creationists (social
conservatives) also put an extraordinary amount of faith
in laissez-faire free-marketism, some to such a degree
that it is quite similar to social darwinism. They
certainly cannot be said to reject Smith's mechanisms
as they relate to the economy, possibly I misread that
post as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 14:44:04 EST