SC:
So, by analogy, if Dennett and Dawkins pushed the dogma that the fact that
we understand the natural processes by which trees grow eliminates the need
to consider a creator, you would see the reason to be concerned that botany
is taught in naturalistic terms. I understand the concern here, but I have
a problem with this approach. It seems to me that the best way to counter
Cawkins in such an instance is to teach botany in naturalistic terms, but
also explain how it cannot logically disprove the existence of a creator.
This way you maintain your integrity to science and to faith.
>
>The "project" of people like Dennett and Dawkins is to ELIMINATE the need for
>God from ultimate reality. This is precisely why Dennett's book is entitled
>"Darwin's DANGEROUS Idea" (emphasis mine). For D & D, belief in God is not
>only superstitious, it is harmful--to persons, to society. Therefore, whatever
>Darwinian foothold they have they use as leverage against the "dangerous" idea
>of God.
>
>This is the sort of leverage people like Phillip Johnson have called them on.
>And they're mighty testy about it. I think because a nerve has been directly
>hit.
I think Phil has done a great service by bringing the discussion out of the
closet and making it something we do not have to be ashamed of due to poor
scholarship. Yet, I have significant problems with Phil's understanding of
the philosophy of science.
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings
to search out a matter." Proverbs
"What, then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that
nobody asks me" Augustine 'Confessions'
__________________________________________________________________________