From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>Heads up on this piece by Eugenie Scott in the latest Science (on the web
>at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5467/813).
>
>It's a reasonable piece from the point of view of an evolutionary
>creationist (theistic evolutionist). There seems to be some lack of
>recognition that some scientist use evolutionary theory to propogate their
>philosophical/religious commitments. But I agree with her for the most part
>that most scientists are evolutionists because of the evidence and not
>because of philosophical/religous pre-commitments.
Terry, I wonder why you think she *should* comment on the fact that some
scientists use evolutionary theory to support their philosophical/religious
views. (I've changed the words "propagate" and "commitments" as those
seem a little loaded.) Is it relevant to the topic of her article?
There seems to be an implication (or am I being oversensitive?) that you
think it's improper for scientists to do this. But I can't see why.
Scientists are as entitled as anyone else to express their philosophical
views, and, if they think that evolutionary theory supports their views, why
shouldn't they say so? It's also common (perhaps *more* common) for
physicists to use physical theories to support *their* philosophical views.
Richard Wein.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 19:39:36 EDT