Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical of Evolution

Denyse quotes Ruse as saying:

> "I worry about the political consequences of
> Dawkins's message. If Darwinism is a major
> contributor to nonbelief, then should Darwinism
> be taught in publicly funded U.S. schools?"
>
> (From "Through a glass, darkly," a review of A
> Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies,
> Science, and Love (New York: Houghton Mifflin,
> 2003), American Scientist (November-December,
> 2003),
> www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/28365 .)
 
Denyse,
 
Thank you for including a link to the full review, in which I was able to
read the sentences immediately following the quotation you give above. Ruse
writes:
 
"The Creationists say not. They argue that if the separation of Church and
State keeps belief out of the schools, then it should likewise keep
nonbelief out of the schools. There are issues to be grappled with here, and
Dawkins does nothing to address them. Does Darwinism as such lead to
nonbelief? It is true that Darwinism conflicts with the Book of Genesis
taken literally, but at least since the time of Saint Augustine (400 A.D.)
Christians have been interpreting the seven days of creation
metaphorically."
 
Denyse:
> Pardon me, but if you didn't react to the same
> situation that Ruse has, why am I supposed to
> take you seriously? You claim to be Christians
> -- and I don't doubt it -- but I am amazed that
> this doesn't concern you as much as concerns
> even him.

I see no evidence in any of Ruse's review that he considers "Darwinism
threatens Christianity" a serious concern at all. Indeed, he goes out of
his way to critcize Dawkins' zeal in using evolution as a club against
Christianity, saying "So long as his understanding of Christianity remains
at the sophomoric level, Dawkins does not deserve full attention." He also
dismisses Dawkin's critcism of Gould, who did not necessarily see evolution
and religion as incompatible.
 

> By the way, re Jonathan Wells, if he hadn't
> written about all the misleading crap in
> textbooks, who would have?
>
> Try helping to fix the problems instead of just
> defending them and slamming the people who
> report them. I've never met Wells and I don't
> care if he is a Martian; as one who works on
> textbooks part time, I am well aware of the
> types of problems he describes. Only the details
> re biology textbooks were news to me. Again, why
> wasn't one of YOU on the ball?

I assume you are talking about Icons of Evolution, published in 2000. Which
of his arguments did you find especially convincing? And which of the
numerous rebuttals to his work (for links, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/) you find unconvincing? As for "on
the ball" scientists who would have (and did!) write on some of the same
topics *before* Icons was published, try:
 
 1) M. E. N. Majerus, Melanism - Evolution in Action, Oxford University
Press, New York, 1998. Critiqued Kettewell's original peppered moth studies
and pointed out some flaws, including the effects of birds' ultraviolet
vision, but agreed overall with the basic conclusions, namely "Differential
bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by
industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the
evolution of melanism in the peppered moth." (p. 116.)
 
Source: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
 
2) Michael Richardson et al., Anatomy & Embryology, August 1997. Pointed
out the fraud in Haeckel's embryo drawings, the fact that the fraud had been
reported and admitted to in Haeckel's time, but nonetheless continued to be
reproduced in a number of textbooks.
 
3) Kenneth Miller and Jon Levine, Biology 1998. Corrected the next edition
of their textbook after seeing the Richardson article above.

Source: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

Although Miller is a Christian (and author of Finding Darwin's God) all of
the above publications appear to be motivated primarily by the desire to be
scientifically accurate, not by religious objections to Darwin's theory of
Evolution. These publications do the important job of correcting factual
errors in the literature, but do in any way undermine the basic scientific
validity of evolution, as Wells claims they do.

Louise

 
 
 
 
 
Received on Wed Mar 10 14:07:16 2004