badger at phylo.life.uiuc.edu
Sat Apr 1 13:06:51 EST 1995
Wolfgang Wuster <bss166 at clss1.bangor.ac.uk> writes:
>The second is that Dawkins may simply have been familiar with your [Richard's]
>writings, and felt that replying to the arguments is a waste of time, as
>this has had to be done far too many times before.
True, replying to the same tired Creationist arguments is tiresome, as
the proponents of them generally aren't attacking evolutionary
arguments as bad science, but merely because evolution contradicts their
However, I see an uncomfortable double standard in this. Science in
itself supports no philosophical framework. Yet certain books written
by biologists such as Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or Monod's
"Chance and Necessity" try to convince the reader that the author's
atheistic philosophy is somehow supported by evolution. This strikes
me as being as intellectually bankrupt as Creationism.
More information about the Mol-evol