Iain Strachan:
>>Yes, but it is also precisely what Richard Dawkins also says. I
>>believe I saw him say this on a TV programme in the UK about
>>Science vs Religion, which also included contributions from John
>>Polkinghorne. Dawkins said, if I recall correctly "If I were God,
>>I wouldn't have done it by evolution". I think his point was that
>>evolution was an awful way to do it, and led to incalculable
>>amounts of suffering etc. Therefore Dawkins seems to be in support
>>of Hunter.
George Murphy:
>One of the basic human problems is the tendency to create a God in our
>own image - whether we believe in that God or (as with Dawkins) don't.
I consider myself at least partly under the "Darwinian tent" and I
certainly do not support it by any assertion about what God would or
wouldn't do. That is theology, not science. I am at least one
counterexample to Hunter's claims and I know of many others (I also have
issues with Hunter's scientific claims, but that's another subject). I
don't know of it is a conscious decision, but it seems to me that
support for polarizing positions such as Hunter's & Dawkins's is only
bolstered if these gentlemen conveniently ignore or deny obvious
alternatives.
Also, I really dislike it when people use the word "Darwinian" without
indictating which of at least three, distinct meanings they intend: i.e.
Darwinian as "a type of evolutionary mechanism", "a particular body of
scientific thought" or "a brand of Naturalistic philosophy". Worse still
are those writers that use it interchangeably in the same document or
actually have the gall to claim that these definitions really mean the
same thing. At best, this practice provides the careful reader with a
view into the writer's mindset.
Regards,
Tim I
Received on Sat Jul 30 13:16:03 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 13:16:04 EDT