Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Misleading Edge -- Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement
Touchstone ^ | April 2007 | Anika Smith & Casey Luskin

Posted on 05/24/2007 4:45:28 PM PDT by Zender500

When sixteen leading Darwinists write essays on a crash schedule to get a book out by the end of the school year, you might suspect a sense of urgency, and indeed, editor John Brockman opens Intelligent Thought with a plea for his colleagues to defend Darwin-based civilization from “the Visigoths at the gates,” the proponents of Intelligent Design, “whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages” and who pose “the gravest of threats to the American economy.”

Brockman, a literary agent who went from pop publicist to managing popular science writers like atheists Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, has a long history with this particular body of “preeminent thinkers,” as his book boasts. He publishes Edge: The Third Culture, an online salon where the authors claim to offer a new culture of intelligentsia who are interested in “thinking smart” and not in “the anesthesiology of wisdom.”

On this site, Brockman shared an e-mail sent to him from a Darwinian who teaches freshmen at Columbia, who was concerned that students aren’t rejecting Intelligent Design for the right reasons, but “merely because the religious and conservative stripes of ID can sometimes look a little uncool.” He and his colleagues wrote Intelligent Thought to present the public, especially students, with scientific reasons to reject Intelligent Design.

The book is published as a collection of essays from sixteen of Brockman’s Edge contributors, including Dawkins and Dennett, Harvard’s Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne, professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, and Scott Atran, research director in anthropology at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris.

Not Scientific

Despite the promise of the subtitle, much of Intelligent Thought is devoted not to scientific but to philosophical and especially

(Excerpt) Read more at touchstonemag.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: evolution; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign

1 posted on 05/24/2007 4:45:30 PM PDT by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zender500

Good, they need to be running scared.


2 posted on 05/24/2007 4:54:09 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

“...concerned that students aren’t rejecting Intelligent Design for the right reasons, but “merely because the religious and conservative stripes of ID can sometimes look a little uncool.”

ha ha :)


3 posted on 05/24/2007 5:00:23 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
Despite the promise of the subtitle, much of Intelligent Thought is devoted not to scientific but to philosophical and especially dysteleological arguments against Intelligent Design. A dysteleological argument makes certain extra-scientific, theological assumptions about the moral purposes of the designer, then asserts that life or the universe could not be the result of intelligence because nature is (allegedly) not the nature those assumptions require.

For example, Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, who discovered string theory, writes that most of the universe is “hopelessly hostile to life and uninhabitable. But here and there some small pockets happen, by chance, to be more conducive to life, and that’s where life forms.”

For Susskind, this rules out any possibility of intelligent design, because he assumes that the designer would have chosen to create a universe full of life everywhere, rather than one as hostile to life as the one we observe. Because the universe he perceives does not match the universe he thinks a designer would make, he rejects design.

Interesting. So why aren't the evolutionists calumniated by their scientific brethren for making the kind of pronouncements they're always attributing only to the intelligent-design proponents?

4 posted on 05/24/2007 5:01:00 PM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Maybe for this reason?

Perhaps more alarming for the Darwinists who rushed it into print, Intelligent Thought lacks the originality and creativity needed to invigorate an argument for Darwinism. Instead of illuminating “the real science of evolution,” these sixteen prominent thinkers reveal their philosophical biases against design.

5 posted on 05/24/2007 5:08:07 PM PDT by Caleb1411 ("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G. K. C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema
But here and there some small pockets happen, by chance, to be more conducive to life, and that’s where life forms.”

Change the prepositional phrase to by design and watch the fulminations erupt.

6 posted on 05/24/2007 5:12:07 PM PDT by Caleb1411 ("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G. K. C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema

He “assumes the designer would have chosen...”. What
monumental arrogance. God said, “As far as the heavens are above the earth, so are My thoughts above your thoughts.”


7 posted on 05/24/2007 5:13:05 PM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

How many other sciences are devoted to the legacy of an early 19th-century founder, with no changes or deviations?

Physics? Chemistry? Math?


8 posted on 05/24/2007 5:17:31 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
Well as has been the case since the Middle Ages we all will get the opportunity to face our Maker. Some of these anti-Maker high priests continue to heap up their baggage.... and NO I have NOT declared that anybody is going to .elllll.
9 posted on 05/24/2007 5:21:55 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

For the longest time, science advocates have held that science isn’t deliberately launching targeted attacks against religion, but rather simply calling the evidence as it sees it. However, it is beginning to appear that there is a growing scientific mindset preparing to mount a direct assault in response to the increasing tempo of attacks being brought by their religious adversaries.

I honestly don’t know how well religion will fare in a holy war against science in this day and age. I do wonder if the fundamentalist supporters of such ideas as geocentricism and intelligent design fully realize that they have been hard pressed just to hold their own in this struggle so far, despite the fact that until now their scientific opponents have mainly restrained themselves to defense. Some of them may find themselves a bit overwhelmed if ever they do end up facing a determined, concerted large scale offensive against their beliefs.

I continue to hold that science has neither any business nor inclination to meddle in religion. What I do see, though, is a growing encroachment upon scientific positions by people motivated solely by fundamentalist religious beliefs. So far, there really isn’t a full blown war going on between science and God, despite its imagined existence among zealots on both sides. I shudder to think of the end result should one really occur - both religion and science make essential contributions to life as we know it and it would be devastating should one destroy the other.


10 posted on 05/24/2007 5:38:11 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

“How many other sciences are devoted to the legacy of an early 19th-century founder, with no changes or deviations?..”

Modern studies on evolutionary relationships are primarily based on DNA and backed by an ever expanding fossil record.

Thus your question does not apply to the theory of evolution.


11 posted on 05/24/2007 5:59:21 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Thus your question does not apply to the theory of evolution.

They aren't arguing against the theory of evolution, they are arguing against that evil, nasty Darwinism, and those evil, nasty Darwinists to support it.

What is Darwinism, you ask? That is a deliberately loaded term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. You can't properly hate a group until you can come up with some suitably derogatory name for them.

Never mind that the theory of evolution has been advanced by 150 years of testing and a vastly increased knowledge base, its still all "Darwinism" to them.

12 posted on 05/24/2007 6:06:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I think there’s a confusion here between the idea of a universe with physical laws designed to accommodate, or even generate, life, and a designer who intervenes in the universe as we know it to cause life to come into being.

These are very different notions, but one is as likely as the other to be under discussion when Intelligent Design is mentioned.


13 posted on 05/24/2007 6:21:10 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Sort of like anti-Guliani-ism?

Sorry. I get irritated by name calling and jihads of all types.


14 posted on 05/24/2007 7:12:33 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
What is Darwinism, you ask? That is a deliberately loaded term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. You can't properly hate a group until you can come up with some suitably derogatory name for them.

Evolutionists should have dumped Darwin decades ago when it became apparent that his hypothesis was falsified. But Darwin was a god to the true believers, which put them into a position of defending the indefensible.


15 posted on 05/24/2007 7:26:58 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Evolutionists should have dumped Darwin decades ago when it became apparent that his hypothesis was falsified. But Darwin was a god to the true believers, which put them into a position of defending the indefensible.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

16 posted on 05/24/2007 7:31:52 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
What is Darwinism, you ask? That is a deliberately loaded term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. You can't properly hate a group until you can come up with some suitably derogatory name for them.

Kind of like the "Cretard" label that is thrown around on your website.

17 posted on 05/24/2007 7:57:54 PM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"You can't properly hate a group until you can come up with some suitably derogatory name for them."

So --- to tone down the [ahem] discussion, then labeling those whom disagree with some point of view or another, should be avoided?

That is, unless one's aim is to express hatred, albeit as daggers, at first hidden among what argument is otherwise reasonable.

We've all seen plenty of that sort of behavior around here. Those portions of the going-ons, never fail to bring more heat than light, regardless of who is wielding the blades.

18 posted on 05/24/2007 8:02:11 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
What is Darwinism, you ask? That is a deliberately loaded term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. You can't properly hate a group until you can come up with some suitably derogatory name for them.

Kind of like the "Cretard" label that is thrown around on your website.

My website? I run five websites, and none is even closely related to "cretard." But if you mean Darwin Central, I do not run that site. I am a guest there and, for reasons unknown to me, a moderator there. (Must be my good looks.)

Lets keep our accusations to my posts here, eh?

And here, it is "Darwinists" that is the pejorative term that you see on a daily basis. That term is used almost exclusively by creationists. It is such a characteristic term that almost any anti-science or anti-evolution article will include it for its "shock" value. Its a codeword, and pure propaganda.

19 posted on 05/24/2007 8:18:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
So --- to tone down the [ahem] discussion, then labeling those whom disagree with some point of view or another, should be avoided?

Pejoratives should be avoided, yes.

"Darwinist" is a pejorative. So is "Cretard." Neither is helpful in a rational discussion.

Folks slip up sometimes, but those terms should be avoided in a reasoned debate.

20 posted on 05/24/2007 8:21:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

“Well as has been the case since the Middle Ages we all will get the opportunity to face our Maker. ‘

What, it’s a King Arthur thing?


21 posted on 05/24/2007 9:33:36 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Darwinism is the ideology associated with the scientific theory and only to a limited extent based on it.


22 posted on 05/24/2007 9:42:43 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Just to be clear, the only “namecalling” here hs been done by those who do not understand evolution, using the term “Darwinist” as a pejorative.

Seems kind of one sided to me.


23 posted on 05/24/2007 9:48:36 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I'm not exactly sure how the word "darwinist" is a pejorative, particularly when coupled with "cretard" as comparison, but I'll take your word on it, and avoid the use of either.

However, now that I think twice upon it,
I HAve lost count of the number of threads that quickly strayed from discussing the info in a posted article, and went to the divisiveness of name calling, of posing and posturing, bringing out other perceived differences or grievance. I've seen 'darwinist' used in context of crude insult, but it is sort-of news to me, that the word itself is offensive. Maybe it is, at least in part, because of the way the word has been used/abused? I could see that, if that goes somewhat towards the 'why', of it being offensive.

Shoot, I'm sort-of doing it right now [discussing issues not narrowly related to the article posted, but sans insult, or even the desire to 'insult'].

Typical FR thread-hijaking I'm indulging in, I guess ;)

24 posted on 05/24/2007 10:22:55 PM PDT by BlueDragon (Like it says on the little roadside signs in Texas --- Drive Friendly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"What, it’s a King Arthur thing?

Now THAT, was funny! Though I must say, that after encountering this "Maker", folks talk about, there aint nothing funny about the restrained fury that's in Him. Ooh baby...

25 posted on 05/24/2007 10:29:42 PM PDT by BlueDragon (Like it says on the little roadside signs in Texas --- Drive Friendly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Typical FR thread-hijaking I'm indulging in, I guess ;)

Of course, hijacking a crevo thread on FR is kinda like hijacking a merry-go-round - you might get it going in another direction, but it always ends up just spinning in circles and going nowhere fast ;-)

26 posted on 05/24/2007 10:34:25 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
that's another good one! too funny, because it's too true.

thanks for the good humor. it's what I like best about this place.

27 posted on 05/24/2007 11:12:18 PM PDT by BlueDragon (Like it says on the little roadside signs in Texas --- Drive Friendly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
What, it’s a King Arthur thing?

King Arthur predates the Middle Ages, doesn't he??? The legends were still in the making during the Middle Ages.

28 posted on 05/25/2007 3:27:50 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
For the longest time, science advocates have held that science isn’t deliberately launching targeted attacks against religion, but rather simply calling the evidence as it sees it. However, it is beginning to appear that there is a growing scientific mindset preparing to mount a direct assault in response to the increasing tempo of attacks being brought by their religious adversaries.......

What exactly does science mean? Now it is under the supposed science realm that global warming has been conceived, and further science also heads the minds of the concept of cloning. The scientific community seeks to give the appearance of riding shepherd over the high ground, above all. The scientific community demands, and requires control with their system of educating the very young to wall out the Heavenly Father from their high estates, called public schools.

They use government to collect their tithes that maintains their apparent stature of fittest to survive. They believe they are 'gods'. That other religion spoken of in Genesis, 'you know' the god of knowledge.

29 posted on 05/25/2007 3:47:17 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What exactly does science mean? Now it is under the supposed science realm that global warming has been conceived, and further science also heads the minds of the concept of cloning. The scientific community seeks to give the appearance of riding shepherd over the high ground, above all. The scientific community demands, and requires control with their system of educating the very young to wall out the Heavenly Father from their high estates, called public schools.

Science - pure science - is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It has no concept of right, wrong, good, or evil. It just observes physical phenomena, predicts and tests its behavior to measured conditions, and studies the results. On the other hand, scientists (and the scientific community which they make up) are human, and subject to the same motivations and biases as the rest of us. It would be just as disingenuous to claim that science could never be abused as a tool for selfish and dangerous reasons as it would to claim the same of religion.

You mention global warming and cloning as examples to make your point. As such, I'll also use them to make mine:

Scientifically speaking, there is little doubt that the Earth's climate is entering into a period of elevating temperature. While the duration, amount of increase, and rate of change are legitimately being challenged and debated, the underlying actuality that it is happening is pretty much indisputable. Where the real controversy lies is in measuring (and reversing) the contribution to global warming by human actions. At that point it tends to cease being 'pure' science and becomes a political entity that is no more 'above all' than the people that are using it to further their own agendas.

And as for cloning - it is not science that chooses to pursue it or not. It is individuals with their own ethical standards, with the encouragement (and limitations) of the public will. Science itself does not judge the benefits, nor does it weigh the ethical consequences of this pursuit. Frankly, it doesn't care. There are new phenomena to be observed, new results to study, new data to learn. Whether the result of cloning research is exploited, or if it is even pursued at all for that matter, is a question that is wholly external to the science itself.

No 'high ground'. No 'riding shepherd'. Science simply does.

They use government to collect their tithes that maintains their apparent stature of fittest to survive. They believe they are 'gods'. That other religion spoken of in Genesis, 'you know' the god of knowledge.

Many entities seek government sponsorship, bluntly because it has the deepest pockets around. However, in some cases it is not automatically a bad thing. There can be gains made on both sides of the purse - the grant recipients get resources that make possible avenues of development they could never dream of otherwise. And hopefully the public that gave the money through their government will reap the rewards of a better quality of life, advancements in their production ability (and thus their ability to create wealth themselves), and an increasing understanding of the world around them and how it can be used, preserved, and improved for their overall benefit.

Of course this system can be exploited and abused by scientists as easily as by any other charlatan, regardless of their cover story.

Oh, and if I were of a cynical mind, I might interpret your reference to knowledge being a false god as an attempt to defend a position that can only be preserved by keeping the masses immersed in ignorance. It suggests that any wielder of religious power that advances the idea that knowledge is evil fears that the more their subjects learn, the harder it will be to convince them that they are the sole holders of all God's truths. But that's just if I were to apply a cynical filter to your comment.

30 posted on 05/25/2007 5:58:31 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Science - pure science - is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It has no concept of right, wrong, good, or evil. It just observes physical phenomena, predicts and tests its behavior to measured conditions, and studies the results. On the other hand, scientists (and the scientific community which they make up) are human, and subject to the same motivations and biases as the rest of us. It would be just as disingenuous to claim that science could never be abused as a tool for selfish and dangerous reasons as it would to claim the same of religion.

My Webster's New Collegiate dictionary, 1973 science (n)[ME, fr. MF, fr. L scientia, fr. scient-,sciens having knowledge, fr. prp. of scire to know; akin to L scindere to cut --- more at SHED] 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding b : knowledge attained through study or practice 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b :something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like *systematized knowledge* c : one of the natural sciences 3 a : knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomens: NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method based or purporting to be based on scientific principles 5 cap: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

So I think the designers that design the systematize knowledge are very much under the microscope of good and evil. Back to that Genesis knower, he knew very much of the knowledge of good and evil, and the result of that 'garden party' left two in human flesh with the knowledge that they were without clothing and thus they sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness. No the event did not occur (no matter what the religionists claim) in an apple orchard, but a fig grove.

31 posted on 05/26/2007 3:56:46 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
So I think the designers that design the systematize knowledge are very much under the microscope of good and evil.

I see we are in agreement, then. Scientists (your 'designers', I'm assuming), being human, are as subject to Santa's naughty and nice lists as the rest of us. Science (your 'systemize knowledge') doesn't care in the least about whether we think the knowledge gained through it is good or evil. Thinking otherwise is tantamount to expecting facts to be guilted into changing themselves so that they match what we want them to be instead of accurately depicting what is.

Back to that Genesis knower, he knew very much of the knowledge of good and evil, and the result of that 'garden party' left two in human flesh with the knowledge that they were without clothing and thus they sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness. No the event did not occur (no matter what the religionists claim) in an apple orchard, but a fig grove.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make with that paragraph.

32 posted on 05/27/2007 1:15:15 AM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
I see we are in agreement, then. Scientists (your 'designers', I'm assuming), being human, are as subject to Santa's naughty and nice lists as the rest of us. Science (your 'systemize knowledge') doesn't care in the least about whether we think the knowledge gained through it is good or evil. Thinking otherwise is tantamount to expecting facts to be guilted into changing themselves so that they match what we want them to be instead of accurately depicting what is.

Santa is a good symbol to describe the idea of evolution. Yes, I know that is not what you intended me to take from using Santa, but it sure works, given the myth of Santa.

I am saying specifically that the designers of the systemize knowledge commonly referred to as the Theory of Evolution are not the least bit interested in depicting what is. The designers have a vested interested in protecting their system, cleverly labeled as science. Their system is what keeps them fittest in the process of surviving same as many in the religious sphere taking a few scriptures or portions thereof to maintain their survival. The TOE system is god of their own divining and no other gods shall come before them, not even the Creator of their very souls.

That is their choice and not really my objection, what I do object to is their tyrannical control over what we the tax payers are required to tithe so their houses of their god can be funded, the public school system. There is no one above them to ever hold them to account for what the public school system produces. These fittest will willingly ignore all manner of perversion and degradation within their house of worship so long as they maintain their funding.

The big deception is that evolution got a classification as legitimate science, or what some consider intelligent thought. I do not mean to excluded other prominent deceptions, say that some claim the Bible dates this earth at 6,000 years, when in fact no such scripture exists, and the whole Book points out continually that this earth is very very old. I could list many other deceptions that are simply not found to be what is within the Bible, I just selected one that is on topic. I mentioned what the Bible says in Genesis of the knower of the knowledge of good and evil because it also rarely gets an accurate depiction of what is actually said.

33 posted on 05/27/2007 4:49:23 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Science - pure science - is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral.

What does that really mean? Is rape amoral, moral, or immoral according to “Darwinian” science?

A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion

Is this textbook statement amoral, moral, or immoral according to “Darwinian” science?

Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism…
---Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), p. 5

Is “Darwinian science” - ‘pure science’ or can you name another branch of science taking a position on human morality that doesn‘t involve evolution?

34 posted on 11/20/2007 6:03:23 PM PST by Heartlander (Just my view from the cheap seats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson