Friday, July 15, 2005

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That: the Meaning of the Word “Fundamentalism”

I will elaborate eventually on many of the definitions and meanings of important terms in the evolution debates. However, I wanted to add a quick note on one in particular which is in the title of this blog.

The word “fundamentalism” has many meanings. Its original meaning in connection with the Christian faith is virtually unknown to many people these days. The extension of the term to Muslims has further influenced the popular meaning. I have no objection to “fundamentalism” in the sense of faithful commitment to the fundamentals of one’s faith or philosophy, or zeal for one’s religion. I do object to “fundamentalism” in the sense of intolerance, obscurantism, narrow-mindedness and anti-intellectualism. It is in this sense that it is used in the title of this blog.


At July 15, 2005 2:53 PM, Blogger Mister Hand said...

Despite your grasp of human language, despite your deft use of very large words, I can tell that you are not much of a reader. You have half-read a lot of very good books, I'll bet. Your argument that we should "be open to the supernatural possibilities" is absurd. Good science doesn't allow or disallow for the supernatural. Good science examines evidence, proposes theories, makes predictions saying, "if the theory is true, then we should find this." You've taken the review of Carl Sagan's book out of context (and by extension, you've taken Carl Sagan out of context). I'm assuming you've only read reviews of Sagan, otherwise you would see how your entire thesis falls apart. You sound very smart, but you are not informed. And I'm sure you'll wish to list for me all of the many books you've read, etc. Perhaps you have indeed read every word of a lot of good books, but doubt it. And if you did, you only picked out the bits of information that fit this world view of yours. But you don't know what Darwinism or evolution or science is. You think you know. But, as my Daddy would say, "thinking you know don't make it so."

At July 15, 2005 6:15 PM, Blogger Mister Hand said...

Your blog inspired a blog, which I posted to MY blog:

At February 18, 2008 4:05 PM, Anonymous Lawrence said...

Mister Hand,

You are jumping to a lot of incorrect conclusions and doing so with a lot of insults. You do not know me and have no way of knowing what you assert. Jumping to insulting conclusions is not very scientific. You are sounding like a fundamentalist, in the bad sense of the word. If you think the evidence is on your side, why don't you stick to that, and keep the discourse civil?

Why don't you start with all the evidence that Darwinian theory is the best explanation for the Cambrian Explosion? Perhaps because Darwinian theory does a very bad job of explaining it and, in fact, has to explain it away?



Post a Comment

<< Home