| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2005 04:43:39 AM |
| Object: |
Evolution as Zero-Sum Game |
Evolution as Zero-Sum Game
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/opinion/01woodward.html
By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
Science and religion don't have to cancel each other out.
"Kenneth L. Woodward" OR "Kenneth Woodward"
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Kenneth%20L.%20Woodward%22%20OR%20%22Kenneth%20Woodward%22&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Kenneth+L.+Woodward%22+OR+%22Kenneth+Woodward%22&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kenneth+L.+Woodward%22+OR+%22Kenneth+Woodward%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Kenneth+L.+Woodward%22+OR+%22Kenneth+Woodward%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&
.
|
|
| User: "David Ewan Kahana" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution as Zero-Sum Game |
01 Oct 2005 06:16:13 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Evolution as Zero-Sum Game
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/opinion/01woodward.html
So here we have Woodward's axioms of acceptable thinking:
A1: It is one thing to bracket the divine in pursuit of scientific
truth - after all, there is no way to include God as a factor
in a scientific experiment.
A2: But it is something else to suppose that scientific methods
and the truths thus arrived at constitute the only kind of
knowledge we can have.
But let's consider also a variation on the above axioms:
B1: It is one thing to bracket the scientific in pursuit of divine
truth - after all, there is no way to include a scientific
experiment as a factor in God.
B2: But it is something else to suppose that religious methods
and the truths thus arrived at constitute the only kind of
knowledge we can have.
A1 and B1 presuppose that one can divide up truths and knowledge
into `scientific' and `divine.'
A2 and B2 refer to something one must conclude about what someone
else has supposed.
"In science, as in other practices, there are those whose worldviews
are shaped entirely by the methods and disciplines of their work.
Thus the Nobel laureate James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the
molecular structure of DNA, declares that "one of the greatest gifts
science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of
the supernatural."
OK. So Watson's definitely on Woodward's ***** list. Watson
may have followed A1 but he has violated A2. Not acceptable.
"And then there are evolutionists of a more philosophical bent,
like Michael R. Rose of the University of California at Irvine,
who use evolution to explain everything, including religion."
The horror, the sheer horror of it: seeking to explain
religion? This is not just bracketing the divine. This is
saying that scientific knowledge is the only kind we can
have. It's another A2 violation, isn't it?
I suppose so, if you think you can make a window into
Rose's mind.
But why isn't Rose equally well entitled to adhere to the
equally well-founded axioms B1 and B2 of acceptable thought
if he wants to?
"The penchant to make evolution the intellectual linchpin of a wholly
atheist outlook is manifest in the writings of Richard Dawkins,
professor of public understanding of science at Oxford, whose
public understanding of human beings is that they are "survival
machines" for genes."
What more can you say ... how boorish of Dawkin's. He's not
one of our kind. He's violated A2. Woodward says it, so it
must be true.
"And so, while I think intelligent design is the wrong approach,
I sympathize with those parents who object to the materialist
assumptions that can easily color the teaching of evolution,
absent any acknowledgment of the claims of religion."
Personally I don't sympathize with those parents who object
to the materialist assumptions that can easily color the teaching
of evolution absent any acknowledgment of the claims of religion.
My word for those parents is `Luddites.'
I wasn't aware that acknowledgment of religion was lacking in
American life.
Those materialist assumptions should not only color the teaching
of evolution ... they should saturate the teaching of evolution.
Evolution is a materialist, scientific theory. Woodward's
axiom A1 tells us it is A-OK to bracket the divine in order
to pursue scientific truths.
One wonders what is Woodward's problem? He doesn't like
Watson, and he really doesn't like Dawkins, that much
I learned.
Will we all be required from now on to acknowledge the
claims of religion everytime we make a materialist
assumption, or else, risk being called A2 violators, to
be tossed onto Woodward's trash heap with hopeless cases
like Watson, Rose and Dawkins?
Sorry, Mr. Woodward, you don't get my vote for chief
of the thought police.
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution as Zero-Sum Game |
07 Oct 2005 05:19:42 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Evolution as Zero-Sum Game
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/opinion/01woodward.html
By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
Science and religion don't have to cancel each other out.
Religion, Science and Our Identity (5 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/l07evolution.html
"Kenneth L. Woodward" OR "Kenneth Woodward"
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Kenneth%20L.%20Woodward%22%20OR%20%22Kenneth%20Woodward%22&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Kenneth+L.+Woodward%22+OR+%22Kenneth+Woodward%22&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kenneth+L.+Woodward%22+OR+%22Kenneth+Woodward%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Kenneth+L.+Woodward%22+OR+%22Kenneth+Woodward%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
