Re: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski

From: Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 17:07:01 EST

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "Dennett's bad word and Johnson's question"

    At 11:02 PM 3/20/00 -0500, Mike wrote:

    [...]

    Hello Mike,

    I went to the trouble of reading the last part of Dennett's book.

    I must say that Dennett scares me more than any fundamentalist
    creationist I've ever encountered. While he made not have written
    a sentence which says "parents should be quarantined", he makes
    his intentions very clear.

    He has a section where he is repeating the idea

       Save the (fill in the blank)! Yes, of course, but not _by all means_.

    For example, it is a good thing to save the elephants. But keeping them
    in their natural habitats may be too costly. But, we can put them in
    zoos so we can appreciate them without being endangered by them.

    As a Southern Baptist, I'm a little nervous that one paragraph begins
    "Save the Baptists! Yes, of course, but not _by all means_." The
    paragraph ends "Misinforming a child is a terrible offense."

    How could Dennett possibly be clearer?

    I believe Dennett's philosophy is more dangerous to a free society than
    a parent teaching creationism to their children. To follow Dennett's logic,
    I should say:

    "Save the Philosophers! Yes, of course, but not _by all means_."

    Nevertheless, I'm willing to extend to Dennett a freedom that he would
    deny me, as dangerous as that is.

    Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
    Associate Professor | something and want to
    Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
    The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
                                  | -- Morrowitz



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 14:02:29 EST