<<Richard Dawkins speaks for Richard Dawkins. I agree with some of his
points, and I disagree with others. He, as anyone else, has a right to
publish his philosophical views and political views and use science to
support them - just as any Christian can. Indeed, Christians have abused
science just as much to support their views. I would like to see
Dawkins, and others (including Christians) to be more specific in the
boundary between what science says and their religious, philosophical,
and political views. Generally, this again is mainly a problem for works
targeted to popular publications - not the real business of science in
scientific journals.>>
I agree. It is in the realm of popular publications that I am thinking as
well. They are all the more influential, of course. Most people on the street
get their science from Time or U.S. News than from professional journals. I
love, for example, the way the L.A. Times science writer, Dembart, always
assumes the metaphysical truth of evolution in any review he pens. Not the
most objective of writers, but a million people probably think he is simply
"mirroring" reality.
I wrote:
> I want my brothers and sisters in Christ to do better when they must; but I
> feel called to level the playing field in any small way I can.
Tom responded:
<<What does this mean? It sounds to me you're advocating dishonesty, which
I'm not sure you're intending. Everyone should be doing their best 100%
of the time, no matter what side you're on. Look at it this way, the
better your record is in discussing religious and scientific views, the
more credibility you have - would you want to compromise that to "level
the playing field?">>
Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was this: I want to point out, by way of
the popular media, the errors in Darwinism (and especially the CULTURE of
Darwinism). That's one reason I chose fiction (my novel, by the way, is "The
Darwin Conspiracy" (Vision House), and can be found in most Christian, and
some secular, bookstores. It's a satire about Darwin's time. Thanks for
asking.)
<<Frankly, I think everyone needs to feel more free to write authors to
correct errors - there are plenty of them out there. If you feel Dawkins
did something wrong or misused something in his book, write him>>
This has been attempted. Phillip Johnson, one of the most civil of Darwinian
critics, has written both Dawkins and Gould. Both have sniffed, and refused to
answer, except by dismissing Johnson in passing. Not very cool, in my opinion.
But I say again, there is a lack of coolness (an academic term, eh?) on both
sides. Critics of creationists are justified in raising the issue. I am
justified in raising the issue vis-a-vis the Darwinists.
Jim