"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.
Take a look at this this post about Monty Python, Eugenie Scott's orthodoxy tests, and duck aphorisms.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 1:30 PM
2 comments
I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.
2 Comments:
If "stewie"s comment (below) is at least as logical as any of Eugenia's then we should be able to apply it in egalitarian fashion:
If you are a fundamentalist atheistic Darwiniac 'scientist', holding strict materialism as inerrant religious doctrine, then you should be thoroughly probed, because all of your work will be tainted from your "Origin of the Species" thumping bias, and therefore be nothing but religious tracts dressed in 'scientific' disguise. You should be censored, censured, and your work and career burned at the stake. Connect those dots. MK
At 5:21 PM, stewie said...
If you're religious but still support actual science, the Smithsonian doesn't care about your religion, because you're still pursuing science. If, however, you're a creationist, then probing one's religious views is imperative, because they are most likely letting their religious views corrupt their scientific work, and therefore, their scientific work is not valid, and therefore shold not be published.
These dots are really that difficult to connect?
"These dots are really that difficult to connect?"
No, Stewiw, but then, you aren't connecting the dots. All you're really saying is that someone who believes in Creationism isn't really interested in "actual science." Can you define "actual science" or are you just really saying that if you don't believe in Darwinian evolution then you are not really a trustworthy scientist.
For someone like you, if an evolution and a creationist both pointed out the same flaw in the theory of evolution, only the evolutionist could be trusted. And then, only the evolutionist would be published as long as he said something to the effect, "Evolution is still the basis of all biology!" The Smithsonian doesn't care about science — they care that their party line isn't crossed by anybody.
Post a Comment
<< Home