On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:48:54 -0500 (CDT), NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE wrote:
>"NM>Actually, my Jan. 1993 _National_Geographic_ (p. 18) says:
>"Ironically, birds descended from lizard-hipped dinosaurs, only later
>developing deflected pelvic bones."
SJ>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)"
NM>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.
Good! :-)
>"NM>Let's not assume the intent of every scientist is complete
>pro-evolutionary propaganda!
SJ>Agreed."
NM>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.
Agreed that Gould is more frank about the problems with Neo-Darwinsm,
but there is no doubt that Gould is a propagandist for atheism and
materialism. His unfair review of Johnson's Darwin on Trial
establishes that:
"Is it possible that a dominant group of scientists has been so
devoted to philosophical naturalism that it has been too easily
satisfied by inadequate evidence for naturalistic mechanisms of
creation? Surely Gould of all people must understand why that is a
reasonable question to ask. But can he afford to admit it? It is
one thing to expose prejudice and ideology in the science of the
past; it is another to acknowledge its living influence in the
present. Gould is one of the world's most prominent metaphysicians
of science, who never passes up an opportunity to convey the
impression that science has discovered the world is governed by
chance. His authority as a media star and guru of the academic left
is based on his ability to interpret the Darwinian story with an
egalitarian spin. Would it be in his interest to concede that the
theory from which he gains his own prestige is grounded in something
less secure than unimpeachable fact? Evidently not. Gould's review
of Darwin on Trial took up four pages in the July 1992 issue of
Scientific American, appearing more than a year after the book was
published. The review was an undisguised hatchet job, aimed at
giving the impression that my skepticism about Darwinism must be due
to an ignorance of basic facts of biology. To that end Gould listed
a string of objections about matters that had nothing to do with the
main line of argument, and even invoked his own third-grade teacher
as an authority on how to write chapter transitions. None of this
would have impressed anyone who had read the book, but most readers
of Scientific American would not have done so and would be likely to
assume that Gould was describing accurately. They were not likely to
hear anything to to the contrary because the editors refused to print
my response or any letters from readers, although I know they
received many." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp160-161)
NM>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).
Agreed that Dawkins and Sagan are more propagandist than Midgley,
although I have only dipped into her "Evolution as Religion at a
library.
NM>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!
Good! :-)
NM>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.
It is not necessary to believe what you call "the specific myth-like
stories in the Bible" to be a Christian. A Christian is by
definition a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ. However, if
by "the specific myth-like stories in the Bible" you mean not
only the Old Testament stories in Genesis 1-11, etc., but also
New Testament teaching about Jesus' Incarnation, Atonement,
Resurrection and Second Coming, then it is difficult to see what
reality is left "in the morals and meaning in life taught by
the Christian faith". Because on that basis Jesus was hopelessly
wrong about the meaning of His own life and His bones lie somewhere
in the dust of Palestine.
NM>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.
OK. But your idea of what are "incorrect views of science" are
probably inextricably tied up with your "Issues of
faith/religion/morals"! :-) Johnson points out:
"I do not think that the mind can serve two masters, and I am
confident that whenever the attempt is made, naturalism in the end
will be the true master and theism will have to abide by its
dictates. If the blind watchmaker thesis is true, then naturalism
deserves to rule, but I am addressing those who think the thesis is
false, or at least are willing to consider the possibility that it
may be false. Such persons need to be willing to challenge false
doctrines, not on the basis of prejudice or blind adherence to a
tradition, but with clear-minded, reasoned arguments. They also need
to be working on a positive understanding of a theistic view of
reality, one that allows natural science to find its proper place as
an important but not all-important part of the life of the mind."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p169-170)
[continued]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------