<<The rest of Jim's post added more of Wallace's thoughts along this vein.
However, they offer no more hard evidence for supernatural creation of
humans than Darwin offered for natural selection. Therefore, I contend that
they both had their favorite world-views (or biases, if you prefer), and to
raise Wallace's opinion over Darwin's as an argument against bias is
misleading.>>
Did you read the second half of my post? First, I tell the reader the
"evidence" discussion makes up the bulk of the book:
<<The better part of the book deals with the evidences of early sophistication
and spiritual awareness for modern man>>
I then summarize some of that evidence in the citation about Goodman's [not
Wallace's] conclusions:
<<"Any theory that hopes to provide a really satisfactory explanation of human
genesis must deal not only with the increasingly recalcitrant geographical and
chronological data, but also with modern man's physical and mental uniqueness,
including his inherent abilities and early technological sophistication, and
with the most provocative of all these issues, the seeming duality of man's
physical and spiritual nature." [p. 272]
The evolutionary explanation is not adequate: "Some real problems arise with
geographic circumstances and dates which indicate considerable overlapping
between one species and the next. These theories do not account adequately for
the sudden appearance in modern man of physical and mental traits which seem
to complement and reinforce each other as if by design. We don't find hominids
with chins and no foreheads, or foreheads and no anatomically modern vocal
tracts; we find all the elements of the modern package together in the form of
Homo sapiens sapiens or not at all. And flatly refusing to traffic in unknown
quantities, evolutionary theories do not attempt to deal with issue of man's
seeming duality." [p. 273]>>
So before we start throwing around terms like "intellectual high ground" and
"misleading," let's be sure we have read the posts carefully, without the
blinders of our personal biases.
Jim