Friday, January 14, 2005
Follow-up
David Warren decides to follow up his recent essay on the evolution vs. creation debate, which I linked recently.
It [a website called Talk Origins] is after all designed to provide any sceptic of Darwinism with death from a thousand pinpricks. For that is how the argument for "macro-evolution" is conducted (i.e. evolution above the taxonomic level of the species; as distinct from "micro-evolution", which is a snip, for everyone in his right mind knows that creatures adapt to environment at the species level, and can be bred this way and that). There are a thousand facts about life in nature that are not incompatible with "macro-evolution"; each of which could be explained in other ways with wit and patience.
[T]he "God" of evolutionary biology -- incremental change by natural selection -- is not sufficiently inspiring to sustain the immense priesthood that has collected around it.
It [evoution] is an ideology that continues to reach beyond the strict realm of biology, into areas of philosophy and theology with which it has nothing to do. It sells a cosmos that is blind, random, purposeless.
Evolution is, on the other hand, not a "crock" in the way it is presented by non-ideological science writers. E.O. Wilson, for instance (whose co-written book on The Ants was among the most wonderful Christmas presents I ever received), is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Richard Dawkins, who makes a point of throwing evolution in the face of believing Christians. Prof. Wilson is a gentleman; Prof. Dawkins is a pig.
I have to confess that the decision to highlight this issue again was a close run thing - until I got to the part about Richard Dawkins. Then it was a no-brainer. Dawkins, recall, is the S.O.B. who was among the Guardian's letter writers to the voters of Clark County, Ohio prior to our November election, in an effort to persuade "swing" voters to cast their votes for Kerry. Dawkins' letter made the cyber-rounds, and it was disgusting in its condescension - as are most of his writings on evolution. While I haven't read his work directly, I have had my fill: he is cited (and refuted) with frequency in a good book of essays on the problems with Darwinism: "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing."
It [a website called Talk Origins] is after all designed to provide any sceptic of Darwinism with death from a thousand pinpricks. For that is how the argument for "macro-evolution" is conducted (i.e. evolution above the taxonomic level of the species; as distinct from "micro-evolution", which is a snip, for everyone in his right mind knows that creatures adapt to environment at the species level, and can be bred this way and that). There are a thousand facts about life in nature that are not incompatible with "macro-evolution"; each of which could be explained in other ways with wit and patience.
[T]he "God" of evolutionary biology -- incremental change by natural selection -- is not sufficiently inspiring to sustain the immense priesthood that has collected around it.
It [evoution] is an ideology that continues to reach beyond the strict realm of biology, into areas of philosophy and theology with which it has nothing to do. It sells a cosmos that is blind, random, purposeless.
Evolution is, on the other hand, not a "crock" in the way it is presented by non-ideological science writers. E.O. Wilson, for instance (whose co-written book on The Ants was among the most wonderful Christmas presents I ever received), is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Richard Dawkins, who makes a point of throwing evolution in the face of believing Christians. Prof. Wilson is a gentleman; Prof. Dawkins is a pig.
I have to confess that the decision to highlight this issue again was a close run thing - until I got to the part about Richard Dawkins. Then it was a no-brainer. Dawkins, recall, is the S.O.B. who was among the Guardian's letter writers to the voters of Clark County, Ohio prior to our November election, in an effort to persuade "swing" voters to cast their votes for Kerry. Dawkins' letter made the cyber-rounds, and it was disgusting in its condescension - as are most of his writings on evolution. While I haven't read his work directly, I have had my fill: he is cited (and refuted) with frequency in a good book of essays on the problems with Darwinism: "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing."
# posted by mds : 2:26 PM
