IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

spiked article

Richard Milton richard at milton.win-uk.net
Thu Mar 23 18:21:05 EST 1995

In article <badger.796759611 at phylo>, Jonathan Badger (badger at phylo.life.uiuc.edu) writes:
>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
>philosophical views. 
>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. 

You have summarised with a great deal more economy and
elegance that I was able to muster one of my main
objections to neo-Darwinism: that in some places and at
some times it has ceased to be a scientific theory and
become an ideology of the Marxian or Freudian variety.  I
also agree that the approach you mention by the authors
concerned is as intellectually bankrupt as creationism --
indeed, it seems to me to be perilously close to a form of
scientific fundamentalism. 



Richard Milton               | 
10 Pembury Road              | "Perfectly exact physics is not
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HX      |  so very exact, just as holy men
United Kingdom               |      are not so very holy."
Tel/Fax: 0732 353427         |
richard at milton.win-uk.net    |             Wilhelm Reich

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net