Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,17:15)|
|Also, continuing with the disgression (we really have to open a new thred, methinks), here is an excellent short essai by Jerry Coyne about science and religion. |
Seeing and believing
What is a "die-hard Darwinist"?
Sorry to quibble, because this is a well-written piece. However, I would agree that uncompromising atheist language can and has driven potential accepters of evolution to the creationist corner. However, I see that as a consequence of the marketplace of ideas.
I have said this over and over: I think many more people than will admit it actually do accept evolution, but do not know how to fit it into their worldview and their moral precepts, which I do not insult. I cannot fault Miller for attempting this; he must follow his line of thinking because he is compelled to do so, as I am compelled to follow mine. I do think that "Darwinism" per se can explain the origin of ethics and values, inasmuch as those evolved, too.
The problem is, many believers seem to see evolution as a consequence of the Fall. Miller does not of course, but certain IDists have come close to saying this. Dembski seems to have rejected this idea in his theodicy piece.
Dawkins must also say what he has to say. He cannot not say it; Miller cannot not say it; if anything, it is the ID crowd who holds back and will not be honest. Even Rush Limbaugh (! recognized that, and Judge Jones certainly did. That is why Kitzmiller stung them so.
So let's put aside "accommodationism" and talk about honesty. Honesty unites "strident atheists" and "accommodationists" and theistic evolutionists. Dishonesty unites ID advocates with creationists.
Edited by Kristine on April 28 2011,09:22
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr