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.
regards
Richard
--
***************************************************************
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
===============================================================
