I thought this was the weakest part of the book and I wasn't even involved
in the evolution/creation debate when I read the book in 1979. Then, as now,
I thought he was dead wrong. There are just too many scientists who are
religionists of one kind or another to say that science is thowing babies or
bathwater anywhere. Someone should take Peck to task for ignoring nuclear
physics in his study of psychology. If he protests that nuclear physics has
nothing at all to do with pysychology, so what! He's just showing his bias!
Susan
Then we have emotional as
>well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of
>maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as
>subject to dogmatism as any other religion." (pp. 222-223)
>
>and
>
>"Another major reason that scientists are prone to throw the baby out with
>the bath water is that they do not see the baby. Many scientists simply do
>not look at the evidence of the reality of God. They suffer from a kind of
>tunnel vision, a psychologically self-imposed set of blinders which prevents
>them from turning their attention to the realm of the spirit." (pp. 225-226).
>
>If the cap fits...!
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"It takes a while to realize that the 'thousands' of intermediates being
>referred to have no obvious relevance to the origin of lions and jellyfish and
>things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature,
>artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work,
>and then rearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the
>arrangement." (Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin
>Went Wrong," Pan: London UK, 1982, p27)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb