Stephen said,
"NM>Actually, my Jan. 1993 _National_Geographic_ (p. 18) says:
>"Ironically, birds descended from lizard-hipped dinosaurs, only later
>developing deflected pelvic bones."
You are right and I am wrong:
"The Ornithischians. The arrangement of the bones in the hips of
these dinosaurs is, as the name suggests, very similar to that seen
in living birds - though, confusingly, there is no family link with
birds. While the ilium and ischium bones are arranged very
similarly to the saurischian dinosaur, the pubis, instead of pointing
downward and a little forward, is a narrow, rod-shaped bone which
lies alongside the ischium." (Norman D., "Dinosaur!", Boxtree:
London, 1991, p56)"
Thanks. There are a couple of other points where I am right and you are
wrong, or at least stretching things. If we can nail down a bit more
accurately what exactly science (not necessarily individual scientists) we can
get to the crux of the debate.
"NM>Let's not assume the intent of every scientist is complete
>pro-evolutionary propaganda!
Agreed."
Even agnostic or atheist scientists, mind you. Some are propagandists,
some are not. Gould, for example, a strong supporter of evolution, freely
admits where there are holes, problems, room for debate, and needed corrections
in modern science's view of evolution. He mixes his worldview in with his
writings, but he does it without denigrating humanity and morality. If he
didn't mix in a little worldview, his essays would be so mind numbingly dull
that we wouldn't talk about him because no one had read him. Philosopher
Mary Midgley (Evolution as Religion, The Ethical Primate) also affirms the
scientific conclusions of science without buying the scientific triumphalism
(propaganda) or social Darwinist worldviews that so often are attached to it by
popular science writers like Dawkins and Sagan. (Interestingly, the book
_Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_ by Sagan and Ann Druyan is much closer to the
Gould/Midgley camp, though not completely there; maybe Druyan pointed out some
of the flaws in her new husband).
This has turned into a long tangent, but this has been on my mind as
one of the things that should be brought out on the listserv. BTW, if anyone
has read any Midgley, I'd like to hear what they they think. Though she
doesn't avocate Christian religion (doesn't talk much about religion at all)
her book _Ethical Primate_ brought me back from the brink of being a
reductionist, atheist, life-is-pointless-except-for-doing-science Dawkins-esque
view, allowing me to return to moderacy so that I now feel secure calling
myself a Christian (at least by my definition! I have a lot of problems
believing the specific myth-like stories in the Bible, but I don't think that
is relevant to whether or not we can espouse the morals and meaning in life
taught by the Christian faith). Hmmm, that last statement, especially, ought
to provoke a response.
I'll post this without continuing so that anyone who wants to respond,
to these issues, can. Issues of faith/religion/morals as related to evolution
are the primary reason I'm on this listserv. Bashing on incorrect views of
science (as in my next post), while a fun and important task, are really
secondary.
Nick