Yeah, I read it, but it did not relate to your quotes from Wallace to
counter Darwin.
First, I tell the reader the
>"evidence" discussion makes up the bulk of the book:
>
><<The better part of the book deals with the evidences of early sophistication
>and spiritual awareness for modern man>>
I didn't state my point clearly, perhaps. The point is that when a similar
discussion has an evolution bent, it is immediately labeled as having a
naturalistic bias, and thus dismissed.
As I pointed out earlier, you said, in response to Glenn:
>There is no naturalistic explanation for the sudden leap in modern man...
>Which leaves us an option Glenn fails to consider, and one Goodman proposes:
>the non-naturalistic explanation [Goodman prefers the term "interventionism"].
>Why does Glenn exclude this option? Not because the data compels him, but
>because his prevailing bias is Naturalism.
The lack of an acceptable naturalistic mechanism for the appearance of
humans, does not automatically require one to invoke a supernatural
explanation. This is a bias as large as what you accuse Glenn of having.
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________