On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:25:38 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
CC>Stephen spends his days (seemingly) largely misrepresenting
>evolutionary theory and evolutionists' views (see my posts on
>Fred Hoyle and the "mathematics of evolution" (that is,
>HOYLE'S theory of evolution!!!!) for the latest several of dozens
>of examples -- though I grant that he's been less rabidly
>misrepresentative lately than he was before Susan and I called him
>on the dishonesty of such misrepresentations).
[...]
Dream on! Contrary to Chris' fantasies, I haven't changed one iota. His and
Susan's attacks on my integrity don't faze me one bit and only make me
more determined to expose "evolutionary theory and evolutionists' views"
to public scrutiny.
I have no desire, nor need, to misrepresent "evolutionary theory and
evolutionists' views". It is sufficient merely to fairly and accurately
*represent* them! That is what I assume that Chris and Susan are *really*
complaining of (although to be fair, I do not claim they are aware of it).
It is the overreaction of evolutionists like Chris and Susan to criticism of
"evolutionary theory and evolutionists' views" that convinces ordinary
uncommitted people that there must be something seriously wrong with
evolutionary theory if its adherents cannot handle rational criticism like
other sciences but must find something morally or psychologically wrong
with the critics.
This, as Milton says, looks like "the language of a religious fundamentalist
whose faith has been profaned":
"When The Facts of Life was published, I expected it to arouse
controversy, because it reports on scientific research that is itself
controversial, and because it deals with Darwinism _ always a touchy
subject with the biology establishment. I didn't expect science to welcome
an inquisitive reporter, but I did expect the controversy to be conducted at
a rational level; that people would rightly demand to inspect my evidence
more closely and question me one the correctness of this or that fact. To
my horror, I found that instead of challenging me, orthodox scientists
simply set about seeing me off 'their' property. Richard Dawkins, a reader
in zoology at Oxford University, wrote his review for the New Statesman
'lest the paper commission someone else who would treat it as a serious
scientific treatise'... Dawkins devoted two thirds of his review to attacking
my hardback publishers, Fourth Estate, for their irresponsibility in daring to
accept a book criticising Darwinism, and the remainder to assassinating my
character in the sort of terms quoted above. ["the book is 'loony', 'stupid',
'drivel and its author a 'harmless fruit- cake' who 'needs psychiatric help']
Dawkins is employed at one of Britain's most distinguished universities and
is responsible for the education of future generations of students. Yet this
is not the language of a responsible scientist and teacher. It is the language
of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned." (Milton R.,
"The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Corgi, preface,
1993)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The purpose of science is not to find "facts" or discover "truth," but rather
to formulate and use theories in order to solve problems and ultimately to
organize, unify, and explain all the material phenomena of the universe.
Scientists attempt to avoid the use of "fact, "proof," and "truth," because
these words could easily be interpreted to connote absolutes. Nothing in
science is deemed absolute. Science deals only with theories or relative
"truth,"-a temporary correctness so far as can be ascertained by the rational
mind at the present time." (Stansfield W.D., "The Science of Evolution",
[1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p7)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------